Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

FISHERMEN, CHICHESTER (PETITION)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I wish to present a Petition on behalf of 67 Petitioners, the fishermen of Chichester Harbour and district and others.
The Petitioners, though I believe their fears to be exaggerated, believe that, as a result of British accession to the European Community, there will be a speedy and ultimate depletion of the inshore fishing grounds of Great Britain, causing hardship and ruin to her inshore fishermen. They also believe that there will be a most inadequate naval patrol system for a protection of the six- to twelve-mile zone. The Petition concludes:
Where for your Petitioners pray that your honourable House do retain the Fishery Limits Act of 1964 for an unlimited period and that your honourable House establishes an adequate naval patrol system competent to protect all areas under their control and supervision.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Parliament

Mr. Loveridge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further communications he has now had with the French and other European Governments about the future venue of the European Parliament.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions about elections to the European Parliament.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): Communications between Governments are confidential.
The question of direct elections to the European Parliament, for which there is provision in the European Economic Community Treaty, has been under discussion in Europe for many years. There have been no recent developments. The general question of the future institutional development is for discussion at the European Summit conference.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful for that answer. Would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the


great Parliament of Europe should have its meeting place in one of the capitals of Europe? Would he assure our French friends that if Paris were to be chosen as the venue, we should all be delighted?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have a great love of Paris—for all purposes. As for the location of the European Parliament, Article 216 of the Treaty of Rome provides that the seat of the institutions of the Community shall be determined by the common accord of the Governments of the Member States.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that many of us who are most strongly in favour of British entry into the European Community are also strongly in favour of the democratisation of the institutions of the EEC? Does he accept the view that Britain has a particularly important rôle to play in taking an initiative in this respect?

Mr. Rippon: Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the importance of this subject. Again, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have demonstrated the importance that they attach to the control of the powers of the European Parliament.

Mr. Marten: Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain why this institution, the Common Market, takes so long to make up its mind about something which is relatively simple? Would it not be better, rather than going to Paris, to have this Parliament, if it ever materialises, in the romantic and picturesque place called the Ruhr Valley, which will be the centre of Europe anyhow?

Mr. Rippon: The meetings of the European Parliament, or the European Assembly, are divided between Strasbourg and Luxembourg and some of the committee meetings are held in Brussels. All these are matters for general agreement.

South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (Conference)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he

is proposing to seek to include in the agenda of the forthcoming South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Conference.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): The agenda for the council meetings of the South-East Asian Treaty Organisation is drawn up by the Secretary-General and is confidential. The agenda for this year's meeting covered the military and civil activities of the organisation and reviewed developments affecting the Treaty area itself in the past year.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why the Foreign Secretary has not been more forthcoming in his condemnation of the French nuclear tests in the Pacific, in view of the statements by the Secretary of State for the Environment in Stockholm on similar matters? This is pollution of the environment and it may be endangering the lives of innocent people far removed from France or this country.

Mr. Royle: The French Government are aware of our concern for the well-being of the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island. As in previous years, we have Royal Air Force personnel in Pitcairn monitoring the French tests in order to ascertain that they do not give rise to health hazards, and their reports to date show no increase in radioactivity over normal background levels, and therefore we have no evidence of any hazard to health. The subject was not discussed in conference at the SEATO meeting.

Mr. Blaker: Can my hon Friend say what representations were made about nuclear tests to the French Government by the previous Labour Government?

Mr. Royle: I cannot, of course, answer for the previous Labour Government, but I understand that no representations were made to the French by the last Administration calling for the cessation of nuclear tests, in 1966, when there were five French tests, in 1967, when there were three, or in 1968, when there were five.

Mr. Callaghan: Whatever may have happened in the past, is there not widespread concern throughout the members of SEATO about this matter? In view of the confusion that seems to exist, may


I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has asked the French Government whether the tests have been carried out, whether the French are in the middle of them, or whether the tests have been completed, before he tells us about increases in radioactivity? If he has not asked, will he please do so, and will he represent strongly to the French that we wish them to take the tests no further?

Mr. Royle: My right hon. Friend and I are not prepared to make representations to the French Government. We are aware—we have no reason to doubt—that a test took place on 25th June, although we have no confirmation yet of a second test having taken place. As I explained earlier, our reports from Pitcairn so far show no increase of radioactivity over normal background levels and we have no evidence of any hazard to health.

Soviet Jews

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received from hon. Members asking him to take up with the Soviet Government the plight of Jewish citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics who seek to emigrate in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Joseph Godber): Since the 1st January this year, seven requests of this kind have been received.

Mr. Spence: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. As many of us have constituents who are affected by these rules forbidding Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, will he give us an assurance that he will make the strongest possible representations on every possible occasion so that these people may be able to exercise their human rights?

Mr. Godber: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's Question. As to individuals who are Soviet citizens, we have no locus standi. But we have repeatedly made our position clear in deploring the general line about not allowing these citizens to leave. We have done this through my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers and most recently we did it at the last session of the

Human Rights Commission where we made our attitude abundantly clear.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Official Visits)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to seek to pay an official visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and when Her Majesty's Government next expect to receive an official visit from a representative of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend would be ready to go to the Soviet Union at an appropriate time. As regards the second part of the Question, there is no proposal for a Soviet ministerial visit at the present time, but Mr. Gromyko would always be welcome in London.

Mr. Iremonger: Does my right hon. Friend realise that what we are getting at is the fact that it is quite impossible for British subjects to get letters delivered to Jewish Soviet citizens? Is he aware that the Soviet postal authorities tear up the letters? Does he realise that the Soviet Ambassador will not answer personally letters addressed to him on this subject? Is not the only way to get these letters delivered for Ministers to act personally as couriers?

Mr. Godber: I would hesitate to accept responsibility for acting as a courier in that sense. We have no evidence that a breach of the Universal Postal Convention has taken place and therefore no grounds for making representations in this matter. The interest in this subject which is displayed in this country cannot have left the Soviet authorities in any doubt that we would deplore any unwarranted interference of any kind with the mail.

Mr. Iremonger: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that for the Soviet authorities to tear up registered letters is not a breach of the Universal Postal Convention?

Mr. Godber: I was not aware that that was not a breach. In any case, I have made our position clear, that we would deplore interference with the mail. We have no standing with regard to matters outside the Universial Postal Convention.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which subjects the Government are now doing preparatory work prior to the Summit Meeting of the Common Market countries and the applicant countries.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current state of the Government's preparations for the summit meeting of the Common Market and applicant countries.

Mr. Rippon: Preparations are directed mainly to matters bearing on the internal development of the Community, its external relations and responsibilities, and institutional questions.

Mr. Marten: Does not the breaking of the agreement to narrow the exchange rates so soon after it was made illustrate the abject folly of becoming tied into such schemes, anyhow for the British people, if not for the Common Market people? If this matter is to be discussed at the summit, would my right hon. and learned Friend made it perfectly clear to President Pompidou that the British people do not want to have anything to do with this?

Mr. Rippon: No, Sir—to both parts of the question.

Mr. Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that among the subjects to be discussed at the summit will be regional economic policy?

Mr. Rippon: That is a matter that comes within the framework of the first item on the agenda to which I have referred, the internal development of the Community.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets President Pompidou or any of the French Ministers, will he draw their attention to the excellent poll recently taken by the Daily Express, the Harris Poll, which says that the overwhelming and full-hearted consent of the people has not yet been obtained by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Rippon: We all know what has happened in Parliament and the very large majority which has expressed its approval for membership of the Com-

munity on the terms negotiated. I think that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sometimes speak from the Opposition Front Bench without the full-hearted consent of their back benchers.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend do everything he can to prevent the postponement of this important summit meeting?

Mr. Rippon: There is no reason to suppose that there will be any such postponement. Preparations are going ahead between all Foreign Ministers.

Mrs. Hart: Is there expected to be included on the agenda the issue of generalised preferences and the harmonisation of the British scheme with the EEC scheme, and, if so, is the Chancellor of the Duchy proposing to take what one would hope would be a relatively tough attitude?

Mr. Rippon: We shall take a co-operative attitude because the Community has demonstrated over many years its concern for its responsibilities, particularly to the developing world. I particularly emphasised in my answer that one of the matters to be discussed was not just external relations but external responsibilities. That must include the sort of subject to which the right hon. Lady referred.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet representatives of the Australian Government to discuss Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Rippon: I have had discussions with Mr. Anthony, Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, who visited London from 26th to 29th June.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has just completed a visit to Australia.

Mr. Huckfield: But is it not a fact that it is only because of the promptings of the Australian Labour Party that Mr. Anthony has been persuaded or, indeed, forced to make this visit? Now that he has gone, will the right hon. Gentleman


bear in mind the particularly strong feelings of the Australians about their exports of canned fruit to this country?

Mr. Rippon: That question contrasts as much with the truth as does the hon. Member's suit with his surroundings. We have known since the end of March about Mr. Anthony's visit, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been in very close touch at official level and ministerial level over a very long period, and we shall continue to be so.

Mr. Richard: What did the visit achieve?

Mr. Rippon: Successful consultation.

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the access afforded to Members to information concerning European Economic Community proposals before they reach the stage of decisions; and if he will seek ways of extending this.

Mr. Rippon: The Government fully recognise the need for Parliament to receive information about draft Community instruments. I hope that agreement can be reached on a committee to suggest machinery for best meeting the needs of the House.

Mr. Johnston: Does the Chancellor of the Duchy agree that it is perhaps time that the Government made specific proposals for the improvement of the availability of information? Secondly, will he consider discussing with the Leader of the House the possibility of making it as easy for Members of the House to go to Brussels to discuss matters with Community officials as it is for Members to discuss matters with Government officials in this country?

Mr. Rippon: I am all in favour of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House going to Brussels as frequently as possible, if only because they will realise how many things which are said here about the Community and Commission are imaginary and illusionary. As for making information available, the hon. Member knows that we have taken steps to publish the Instruments up to 10th November, 1971, in 42 volumes. We are publishing further Instruments on a continuing basis as fast as possible and are making arrangements which, I hope, will be generally satisfac-

tory to right hon. and hon. Members. As from 1st January, 1973, when we shall be full members of the Community, of course all authentic texts will be published in the official journal of the Community.

Mr. Marten: What is the average time delay between a proposal being made in Brussels and its becoming available to hon. Members in the Vote Office?

Mr. Rippon: There is a wide variation according to the controversial nature of the subject.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister said that he is making the various orders, rules, regulations and the rest of it available, but is he not aware that there are some 2,000 of these, most of which no member of the Government has ever seen and which certainly have not been seen by hon. and right hon. Members on either side of the House, and on which there has been no general debate here? Is he aware that it takes eight or nine months for us even to get copies? What is he doing to expedite this?

Mr. Rippon: As the hon. Member knows, we have had many discussions about the availability of documentation. Considering that we have had to catch up on 10 years of documentation, there has not been as much difficulty as one might have forseen. As for the interests of industries, they have never been in any doubt about the position in matters which are of interest to them.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please bear in mind that some of us who are supporters of entry into the European Economic Community nevertheless feel that talk about movement towards monetary and economic union is somewhat premature before the establishment of a European Treasury, a European central bank, and a directly elected European Parliament?

Mr. Rippon: I am absolutely certain that information about these matters will reach the House in enormous volume—not necessarily of literature, but of activities—long before any decisions are taken.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Foreign Ministers' Conferences have been held to


organise the Common Market Autumn Summit Conference; and how many of these he has attended himself.

Mr. Rippon: The most recent meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Ten on 26th June to discuss preparations for the European Summit conference was the fifth in the series. I have attended all five meetings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the meeting on 26th–27th May.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Minister seen the Press reports—and we can all believe the British Press—that the Foreign Secretary has not attended these meetings as regularly as have his Common Market opposite numbers and that they are upset and annoyed about this, particularly as we have floated the £ without consulting them? Will he confirm or deny the report that the Summit Conference might be put off?

Mr. Rippon: I can deny these anxieties which beat upon the hon. Gentleman's head. They are not the least upset or annoyed and they perfectly well understand the circumstances in which the arrangements have been made. They are pleased at the way things are going and there is no reason to suppose that there will be any postponment of the Summit Conference.

Mr. Callaghan: While I recognise that the Government have committed themselves to financial, monetary and economic integration, and that there is nothing we can do about it at the moment, will the Chancellor of the Duchy please convey at the summit talks that there is absolutely no agreement in this country on financial, economic and monetary integration and that if any agreement is entered into by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the country, the Government will find themselves unable to carry it out?

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman knows—none better—what successive Governments have said about the desirability of moving towards European economic and monetary union. He made some formidable statements on this subject when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they are on the record. All we are doing is preparing the agenda for the Summit Conference, not writing

the communiqué that will be issued, we hope, after it. All that we have said is that among the subjects to be considered for the agenda of the Summit Conference are economic and monetary union and progress in the political field. In discussing economic and monetary union we must consider not only the internal arrangements for the enlarged Community but also how they fit into the context of international monetary arrangements. All these discussions are going on all the time.

Mr. Callaghan: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy at least give an assurance that the Government will not make the profound mistake of trying to achieve a monetary unit in Europe that will stand either in opposition to the dollar or separate from it? Will he give us an undertaking that at the conference the Government will go for the creation of an international unit that will be universally accepted?

Mr. Rippon: All I can say at this stage is that we are considering the agenda for the Summit Conference, and not the decisions to be taken at it, and are making the appropriate preparations. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, discussions are going on all the time between finance Ministers, monetary committees and so on. We shall just have to see what progress is made. Of course it is recognised that there are divisions of opinion about how fast one should proceed and in which way.

Stockholm Conference on the Environment

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will have talks with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in the light of the Stockholm Conference on the Environment, about Soviet participation in United Nations work on the environment.

Mr. Anthony Royle: We have no plans for special talks of this kind. The recommendations of the Stockholm Conference will be forwarded to the United Nations General Assembly where the USSR will if it wishes have the opportunity of making its views on participation known.

Mr. Dalyell: Does that answer imply that Russia will not be welcome into


world work on the environment until the resolution of the German problem?

Mr. Royle: I hope that I did not imply that. Her Majesty's Government regretted the absence of the USSR and a number of other countries from the original conference. The results of the meeting were none the less most encouraging and we hope that useful progress was made on most of the items which the Government considered important.

Middle East

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has to seek to pay official visits to countries in the Middle East.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

Mr. Davis: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a pity that he is not going to Israel, for example, so that he could explain to the Israeli Government how it came about that Britain sponsored an inequitable and selective resolution at the Security Council which condemned Israel for taking steps to safeguard herself against gangster attacks from the Lebanon and yet at the same time had not a word to say about the massacre at Lod?

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend visited Israel in April. The Security Council resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers was directed towards the attacks made by Israel against Lebanon during the preceding days. Her Majesty's Government felt it right to participate in this. It is not correct to say that there was no reference to other matters, because paragraph 2 of the resolution profoundly deplored all acts of violence, obviously including the Lod affair.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Would it not have been better for the Government to include a specific condemnation of the guerrillas for what they have done and a specific injunction upon them not to repeat it?

Mr. Godber: Her Majesty's Government's view on this is that these are matters in relation to sovereign States. This resolution was not directed to guerrilla activities but to the action of one State

against another, which must be put in a different category. This is an important distinction to maintain. We have, however, made clear our attitude with regard to the Lod incident. My right hon. Friend has expressed in this House the horror of this Government and our sympathy with those concerned. There is this distinction, however, which I must draw.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement in the House about the discussions his Department has been having with the Palestine Liberation Organisation about the establishment by that organisation of an office in London? Will he say who authorised his officials to have discussions with these thugs and murderers and what guidance was given to them by his officials in the light of the overwhelming public opposition in this country to the establishment of such an office in London?

Mr. Godber: There are a great many misstatements in that question. We had better get down to the facts. The facts, quite simply, are that Her Majesty's Government have not given any direct accord to the establishment of an office and that under British law there is no means of preventing any organisation from establishing an office in this country.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the lady who threw ink over the Prime Minister?

Mr. Godber: There are no means of preventing anyone from establishing an office here, and in fact all sorts of different organisations have done so. The only question which arises for the Foreign Office is that of official recognition or diplomatic status. There is no question of according either to this organisation.

Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is great public disquiet about this matter? If it is difficult to act against this organisation opening offices in London within the present framework of the law, will he find a way of changing the law to ensure that this does not happen?

Mr. Godber: A change in the law would be required to make a distinction of that kind, but it would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. It is certainly not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Callaghan: Although there may be argument about whether the organisation should be established here, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the question of admission of any individual to man such an office will be scrutinised by the Home Office as carefully in the future as has happened in the past? May we be assured that there will be no departure from the policy of refusing to admit anyone who has used violence in connection with political activities?

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is another Department's responsibility and that it is difficult for me to answer precisely. However, I have no reason whatever to believe that the policy would be any different from that established by his own Government and by mine and that the question of individals who might man offices here would be very closely scrutinised.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Rhodesia

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth-Affairs by what percentage the exports of France to Rhodesia have grown in each year since 1965.

Mr. Godber: I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report the relevant statistics taken from the Fourth Report of the Committee established in pursuance of Security Council Resolution No. 253.

Miss Lestor: The Government's policy in continuing sanctions against Rhodesia is very sensible. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures show that France, like other EEC countries, is among the biggest breakers of sanctions? Would it not be sensible for Her Majesty's Government to put pressure on the Governments of her future partners in the EEC with a view to doing something about the policy of sanctions-breaking?

Mr. Godber: When the hon. Lady has figures, she will see that they do not bear had an opportunity of studying the out what she said. The figures give

the amounts which are officially recorded and they show that for the last recorded year, 1970, the exports from France to Rhodesia were negligible. In fact, they were only 7½ per cent. of those for 1965. That is the official position. These are Government figures. We all know that certain firms and industries evade sanctions.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is it not a fact that Japan, most of Europe, the majority of countries on the African Continent, the United States in respect of chrome, and indeed most of the world trade with Rhodesia? Would it not be better if we were more straightforward about this, went to the United Nations and explained that whatever argument there might be for universal sanctions, there was no argument whatever for sanctions imposed by a single country at our expense?

Mr. Godber: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. Britain has most religiously adhered to sanctions to the absolute, full limit possible, and other countries, or individuals from other countries, have succeeded in evading them. We have brought this matter to the attention of the United Nations on a number of occasions and it has been discussed many times in the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee. However, obviously we must consider it carefully in regard to our future policy.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely satisfied that the United Nations Committee on Sanctions is working effectively? If it is not, what steps do Her Majesty's Government propose to take to strengthen it?

Mr. Godber: The Commonwealth Sanctions Committee considered this matter only last week and it has made recommendations to Commonwealth countries that they in turn should make recommendations to the United Nations. We shall study very closely the recommendations made in the report.

Mr. Callaghan: Adverting to the right hon. Gentleman's last answer but one, is it the Minister's policy to try to get other nations to observe sanctions, along with us, or is it to use their breaking of sanctions as an excuse for our departing from them?

Mr. Godber: If the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the very clear statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made on this matter in the recent debate, there is nothing I can add. There is no change whatever

EXPORTS FROM FRANCE TO SOUTHERN RHODESIA


The Fourth Report provides details up to 1970. Percentage changes over the previous years are given in brackets.


1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970


£1,604,000
£1,760,000
£1,656,000
£992,000
£83,000
£119,000



(+10·3)
(-6·4)
(-4·0)
(-91·6)
(+43·4)


Figures are converted from United States dollars at the rate of US$2·40=£1.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from Commonwealth countries to publish details of those countries which he has evidence are involved in breaking sanctions against Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: None, Sir. So far as evidence of breaches of sanctions are concerned, I have nothing to add to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) on 9th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 169–71.]

Mr. Judd: But is there not something pathetically unconvincing about a Government who say that they are committed to sanctions but refuse to do anything to achieve greater international observance of the sanctions policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential to focus world public opinion on sanctions-breaking when it takes place? Can he be surprised that the Commonwealth and the rest of the world are saying that the Government are following a course of cheap opportunism in trying to face both ways at once?

Mr. Godber: That is wholly unrealistic and I reject it absolutely. It is not true to say that the Government have not tried to call attention to this matter. As we have reminded the House, we have on no fewer than 170 occasions sent notes to the Security Council Committee calling attention to breaches of sanctions and for action on them. Britain has not only enforced sanctions herself but has drawn breaches to the attention of the United Nations. It is the United Nations' duty, under the Security Council Resolution, to ensure that sanctions are carried out.

in our policy; it is precisely as stated by my right hon. Friend. But one cannot avoid observing that other countries are failing to carry out sanctions when we are doing so.

Following are the statistics:

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are glad that Her Majesty's Government's representative on the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee gave some pretty robust answers to some rather nonsensical questions? However, would it not be much better to wind up the whole thing?

Mr. Godber: I am not clear about the point to which my hon. Friend is referring. Perhaps he is referring to Press reports. No statements have been published on what took place at the meeting, and I cannot comment on Press reports. However, at the meeting we gave all the help we could on matters relating to sanctions, and it is as a result of the discussion last week that these further recommendations have been put forward.

Mr. David Steel: While accepting that the Government have drawn the attention of that committee on many occasions to breaches of sanctions, is it not the case that it has been done with the absolute minimum of publicity, whereas what is required is maximum international publicity?

Mr. Godber: It may well be that further international publicity would be helpful, and we would be prepared to take our part in that, but this is a matter for the United Nations themselves. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] It is for this Government to carry out publicity with regard to their own activities but international publicity should be carried out by the international organization concerned.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Minister referred to 170 cases of reporting to the UN machinery as it is now. Has he or his right hon. Friend, at least in recent months, raised the case for reviewing the


existing machinery so as to make it more effective?

Mr. Godber: That was the purpose of the discussions last week, to which I referred, at the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee. There are various proposals put forward, and we are considering them at the moment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cumulative cost to public funds of policing sanctions against Rhodesia since the unilateral declaration of independence.

Mr. Godber: I am afraid that no realistic figure for this can be given.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: There is not much that is very realistic about this operation, I suggest, but are we not in some danger of beginning to look a little foolish in this affair? We have been told that there were 166 occasions on which we peached to the United Nations about transgressors, but nothing has happened. Is it not about time that we told the United Nations to try to do its own dirty work?

Mr. Godber: In sanctions we are continuing the policy as explained by my right hon. Friend. In so far as this is a question of cost that is a matter in which I believe it right to continue to carry out our obligations, so long as the policy remains unchanged.

Mr. Guy Barnett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the sanctions committee of the Commonwealth, in particular on proposals to tighten sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Godber: Ways of tightening up sanctions have been amongst the subjects discussed at recent meetings of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee on which Her Majesty's Government are represented.

Mr. Barnett: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government are giving full support to this point plan which this committee put for-Commonwealth initiative, and in particular would he comment on the four-ward? Does he not think that it is by

the Commonwealth initiative through the United Nations that the Government have the best hope of doing something about tightening sanctions, particularly where they have been broken by EEC countries?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I have said that we are giving careful consideration to these proposals, and consideration to the way in which we can make the most effective follow-up. I must repeat that our own sanctions are being applied absolutely and that there is no question of the tightening up of our own sanctions being required, as there is of those of other countries.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can my right hon. Friend say how much time this worthy body has spent on examining the reasons and circumstances for the doubling of the Australian wheat exports to Rhodesia?

Mr. Godber: I cannot without notice give any information about particular matters.

Mr. Foley: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the British representation on this committee? Is it right and proper that a senior official, no matter how competent, should be there defending the inadequacies of the present Government in this field? Should there not be a Minister present to speak on behalf of the Government? Why have the Government broken the precedent established by the last Government?

Mr. Godber: There are no inadequacies by the present Government. This Government are carrying out quite properly their policy and obligations. As for representation, the official is a very senior official in whom we have full confidence.

Mr. Barnett: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to this and other Questions, I should like to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government now propose to take to assist the development and education of the Rhodesian Africans; and whether the Commonwealth Special Assistance Scheme can be expanded to allow more


Rhodesian Africans to receive technical training in this country.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear that, in the absence of a settlement, things will remain as they are. The Special Commonwealth Programme applies only to Rhodesian Africans outside Rhodesia. This will continue, and I am willing to consider whether there is an unsatisfied demand for technical courses.

Mr. Archer: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter because there is great need for Africans in Rhodesia to receive technical training? The present bottleneck which is caused by the demand for one A level is considerably restricting the situation. I hope that my right hon. Friend, despite the lack of a settlement, will still give serious consideration to this whole problem.

Mr. Wood: I shall continue to consider this matter, but there are only a limited amount of places for people needing technical training. I want to try to divide the training as fairly as possible among the people in the various countries.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: To help the situation, could not the Minister arrange to send to Rhodesia current and indeed future copies of Private Eye?

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the Overseas Development Administration budget is now being applied to the education and training of Rhodesians.

Mr. Wood: The proportion is 0·05 per cent. of the whole aid programme.

Mr. Judd: Is the Minister prepared to examine whether the proportion could be increased because, as was suggested in the previous Question, there are a large number of people in Rhodesia who are seeking opportunities for technical and other further education in this country, who are qualified to take places which are offered to them, but who are unable to come here simply because of shortage of resources? Is this not a practical way in which we can act in the middle of a confused situation?

Mr. Wood: If there is an unsatisfied demand for technical training which we

can try to fill, I shall certainly consider whether we can make improvements in existing arrangements.

Seychelles

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent developments in the Seychelles.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I visited Seychelles at the end of May to familiarise myself with the situation there. I had wide-ranging discussions with the Governor and members of the Council of Ministers, including Mr. Mancham, the Chief Minister. I also had meetings with Mr. Rene, Leader of the Opposition.
I was much impressed by the improvement in the general standard of living brought about by the Seychelles Government under the able leadership of the Governor and by the development of tourism.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Is my hon. Friend aware that the feelings of friendship between the two countries have certainly been increased by the successful visit which he made? What has he been able to do to help them to find ways of closer links, because the Seychelles have their eyes on certain arrangements made by the French in the Indian Ocean? Will he consider with our right hon. Friend the possibility of increasing agricultural production in that country?

Mr. Kershaw: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind words in the first part of his supplementary question. There is a further Question on the Order Paper about the constitutional developments in Seychelles. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that it is extremely important to get a further increase in agriculture there.

Irish Republican Army (Soviet Contacts)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will protest to the Soviet Government about the meeting in Liverpool between a delegation from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics


and members of the Irish Republican Army; and with what result.

Mr. Anthony Royle: No, Sir: my hon. Friend is presumably basing himself on Press reports which I am unable to confirm.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I apologise for the Irishness of the tenses in the Question as it emerged, re-drafted, from the Table, Mr. Speaker. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is, perhaps, basing himself on the entire artificiality of any distinction between the State and the party in the USSR? Is he saying that there was no meeting in Liverpool between representatives of the party in the USSR and of the IRA?

Mr. Royle: No. I am sorry if I did not make myself plain to my hon. Friend. I am aware that Press reports suggested that such a meeting took place. I am not able to confirm them, but if my hon. Friend has any further information which would be of value to me or to the Government, I shall be most grateful if he will let me have it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that no one could doubt the wide separation between the present Government of this country and the party.

Iraq (Oil Agreement)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the agreements concluded between the French and Iraqi Governments and between the Italian State oil company and the Iraqi Government will not prejudice Great Britain's oil supplies from Iraq or compensation claims in respect of the seizure of the assets of the Iraq Petroleum Company; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: We have received firm assurances from the French Government that in their negotiations with the Iraq Government they have been concerned not to prejudice the interests of the British, Dutch and United States shareholders of the Iraq Petroleum Company.
We do not at present have sufficient knowledge about the Italian negotiations for the purchase of Iraq oil to know how these would affect the position on compensation for the Iraq Petroleum Company.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Italian Government consulted us before their State oil company came to a private deal with the Iraqis after the Iraq Government had effectively seized part of our assets in that country?

Mr. Godber: As I said, we have not yet sufficient information on the Italian negotiations. I would prefer not to comment on them.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does this not show the urgent need for a concerted European policy on this as on other such issues?

Mr. Godber: Yes, a concerted European policy is always valuable. We have had the closest contact with the French Government on the actions taken there. I understand that the Iraq Petroleum Company is content that the French agreement does not in any way prejudice its interests.

Mr. Shore: On the point of concerted European policy, will the Minister assure us that this matter will be put on the agenda of the next meeting of the so-called European Political Union—or whatever is the body that is being set up?

Mr. Godber: I should not like to give an assurance on the exact forum of consultation on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman will know that various contacts are maintained in regard to oil matters, and I should prefer not to comment further.

Ghana

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to safeguard British assets in Ghana following the unilateral repudiation of debts owed to private firms by the new Ghanaian Administration.

Mr. Kershaw: The discussions to which I referred in my answer on 13th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) are continuing. Her Majesty's Government are convinced that a negotiated settlement of the debts question will help to safeguard British assets in Ghana.—[Vol. 833, c. 21.]

Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend expect a realistic answer in gross on the total amount of assets to be settled with the Ghanaian Government?

Mr. Kershaw: The High Commissioner is in close touch with the Ghanaian Government about these debts and the problems of British firms. We hope that a settlement will be arrived at in due course. I cannot give the exact amount of the debts of private firms in Ghana.

Mr. Foley: Will the Minister say when these discussions will reach a conclusion? Have they not already been going on for over two years?

Mr. Kershaw: No, they have not been going on for over two years, because the Ghanaian Government repudiated the debt only last February. We have been discussing it since then.

Vietnam (Bombing)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication he has hadwith the United States Government concerning the bombing of dykes in North Vietnam; and if, in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, he will seek an assurance that such bombing will cease.

Mr. Anthony Royle: I have nothing to add to the answers which I gave the House on 12th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 981–6.]

Mr. Jenkins: Is the Minister aware that since then Western Germans have visited the dykes area and have seen the damage done by the bombing? Does he not agree that this is an attack on the environment, and in these circumstances will he not make representations to the United States Government?

Mr. Royle: President Nixon has made it clear that it is not United States policy to bomb dykes. He repeated that in his Press Conference on 29th June. We have no indications that dykes are being bombed. On the same occasion, President Nixon, referring to reports that dykes were being bomber, said:
We have checked these reports. They have proved to be inaccurate.

Mr. Blaker: Would it not be useful if the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh

Jenkins) were to find a way of conveying to the North Vietnamese that the simple method by which any damage which may have occurred to the dykes could be prevented in future is by terminating their aggression against South Vietnam?

Mr. Royle: I agree with my hon. Friend that the recent events in Vietnam have been caused by an invasion by North Vietnam of the South. The British Government, as I have said, remain ready to help to promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam in any way open to us, but, to be effective, any initiative by the British Government would have to be acceptable to all the parties involved in the conflict.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Has the Minister noted that in the last few days there has been an extension of the bombing to destroy civilian centres, power stations and the country's steel industry? Does he not think that he should make representations to the United States Government supporting the proposal for a coalition Government in Saigon, which should satisfy both sides and bring about a cease-fire?

Mr. Royle: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. All weapons of war have terrible effects. For example, heavy artillery used by the North Vietnamese has caused serious civilian casualties in the South. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by singling out particular weapons for condemnation. Our concern, as I said earlier, is to see a negotiated settlement which will put an end to all the destruction of life and property and an end to this beastly war.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great accuracy of the American air offensive has stabilised the situation on the ground in favour of South Vietnam, which is something which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) a few months ago, in what was virtually his maiden speech on foreign affairs, described as an almost total impossibility?

Mr. Royle: There is no doubt that the American action in the North in support of the South Vietnamese, following the invasion of the South by the North, has had a considerable effect on the position in North Vietnam.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

Iceland (Fishing Limits)

Mr James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the talks will be resumed in Reykjavik upon the Icelandic fishing limits; what is the composition of the British delegation; and if he will make a statement upon the latest proposals put up by Iceland.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the continuation of talks with the Icelandic Government.

Mr. Anthony Royle: We hope to resume talks in Reykjavik in the week beginning 10th July. The British delegation will again be led by my noble Friend the Minister of State, who will be accompanied by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by officials from both Departments. No new formal proposals were made by Iceland during the June talks.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the national leaders of the deep sea fishing industry are today in Hull meeting the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and that in my talks over the weekend in the constituency I have discovered nobody who is happy about the outcome of the Iceland negotiations? Will he say what are the Government's contingency plans in the event of a dead-lock? Could he assure the House that skippers and deck hands from Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen operating within the 50-mile limit until 1st September will be protected by the Royal Navy? If he cannot give such a guarantee, will he at least allow the deep-sea ports to have some protection, even to the extent of having naval commandos on board the fishing vessels?

Mr. Royle: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We have already in mind the possibility of including in the talks in Reykjavik a representative from the British fishing industry. As for pro-

tection, I think the hon. Gentleman will remember the answer I gave to the House on 12th June. I will repeat that answer now: I cannot say that in no circumstances would we resort to naval protection for our fishing vessels.

Commonwealth Development Corporation

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now undertake firm financial commitments for a period of at least three years ahead for the use of the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Mr. Wood: I shall shortly be discussing this question with the Corporation and giving an indication of rising allocations for the next three years.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman in those talks come to a firm commitment for at least three years ahead because of the difficulty of long-term planning? Unless the Commonwealth Development Corporation can be assured of fulfilling the commitments which it is to undertake, these may remain unfulfilled in later years.

Mr. Wood: I realise the importance of this matter, and I will try to give the Corporation as accurate an idea as possible of what the commitment will be.

Fiji

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount of mortgages given in the last six months by the finance company in Fiji sponsored by the Commonwealth Development Corporation; what was the percentage of this sum provided by the Fiji Government; and if he will make a statement

Mr. Wood: I understand that the Home Finance Company in Fiji made six offers of mortgages for a total sum of £17,518 from December, 1971 to May, 1972 inclusive. The Fijian Government has a 50 per cent. share in the equity financing of this company, but most of the mortgage funds have been raised by local loans and by loans from the Fiji Development Company, which is wholly owned by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman in his discussions with the CDC pursue this matter, in view of the fact that there is in Fiji a good deal of uncertainty about the future of the sugar arrangements in the coming years? Will he try to get the CDC to agree to create more co-operative housing associations on the lines which have already been laid down, since these associations have been so successful?

Mr. Wood: I shall be discussing this important matter with the CDC. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to it. As for any progress in housing schemes, this is obviously a matter for discussion and agreement between the Fijian Government and the CDC.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps, following upon the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the Government now propose to take to help raise the standard of living in developing countries.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Great Britain's aid programme following the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

Mr. Wood: Within the rising aid programme which we have already announced we shall continue to provide help where we think it is most needed and follow up the initiatives which we supported at UNCTAD III. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade answered general questions about this Conference on 12th June and on the same day I gave the House an account of our attitude to the resolutions on aid matters.

Mr. Marten: What is the Government's estimate of the effect upon the developing Commonwealth of the Government's exchange controls on capital outflow to the sterling area?

Mr. Wood: It is impossible at the moment to make an estimate. It is difficult to know what effect this will or will not have. We may be in a better position to know the answer in a few weeks' or months' time.

Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recent statement by Mr. Arnold Smith of the Commonwealth Secretariat that the Commonwealth countries' share of the EEC market has fallen over 10 years from 22 to 16 per cent.?

Mr. Wood: This is why we hope that British accession to the Common Market and the arrangements which we hope will be made between the expanded EEC and the developing countries of the Commonwealth will mean that opportunities will increase in the future.

Mrs. Hart: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will take very urgent steps to impress on his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the urgency of both aid and trade and of making the right kind of arrangements with the Community in the forthcoming negotiations? Is there not every indication that the Government will give in to EEC demands all along the line? There is no doubt that there is a need to take a very strong line in protecting our own generalised preference scheme and in the distribution of aid, particularly to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Wood: I do not think history supports the right hon. Lady's gloomy predictions about the future. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is aware of these facts and he will do his best for this country and for the developing countries.

Indonesia

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further aid he is giving to Indonesia.

Mr. Wood: I gave the hon. Member the figures on 12th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 189.]

Mr. Dalyell: Then what has come out of the visit to Djakarta by the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Wood: I do not know. I have not seen the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what feasibility studies, on what subjects, and in which areas, are being undertaken by his Department in Indonesia.

Mr. Wood: One; an irrigation study in Eastern Java.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Will my right hon. Friend not overlook the possibilities of agricultural expansion in certain parts of Indonesia which would appear to be particularly favourable for cattle?

Mr. Wood: I shall bear in mind these possibilities. Further feasibility studies may be made, and if my hon. Friend wishes to pass on any ideas I shall see whether they can be considered.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his attitude, be a little more forthcoming about the Foreign Secretary's visit to Indonesia and say what he hopes to achieve?

Mr. Wood: I am always ready to be forthcoming to the hon. Gentleman. I have not seen the Foreign Secretary and I do not know what has come out of his visit. However, I know that my right hon. Friend was anxious to obtain firsthand knowledge of the situation there. As to the aid programme, we have offered a great deal more aid for the future. From what I saw 18 months ago, I am sure that the Indonesian Government will make good use of it.

Tonga

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being given to Tonga, especially in regard to helping to provide accommodation for the mentally sick.

Mr. Wood: The amount likely to be spent in the present financial year is £360,000. The Tongan authorities have not asked that any of this should be devoted to projects providing accommodation for the mentally sick.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank my right hon. Friend for the help he has given in the past, particularly in terms of the provision of hostels. Does he think it satisfactory that mental patients should remain in prison?

Mr. Wood: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a considerable interest in this problem over the years. If the Tongan authorities make suggestions to us to improve the present arrangements—which I agree do not sound particularly satisfactory—we shall consider helping them in that direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance arising out of Questions Nos. 30 and 31. It is the practice of the House that an hon. Member who tables two starred Questions has one answered in priority and the second later. However, today I had the good fortune of having two starred Questions in a row—Nos. 30 and 31. I ask that you look at this, Mr. Speaker. I perhaps had an unfair advantage over some of my colleagues in being able to get two Questions in a row. Perhaps some rule should be applied to Questions starred at No. 30.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is showing his usual fairness in this matter. I will consider the submission that he has made to me.

QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to refer to the matter raised last Thursday by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and others.
As the House will see from page 325 of Erskine May, very clear restrictions are placed upon Questions regarding public speeches by Ministers. Speeches made by Ministers not of Cabinet rank cannot be mentioned in a Question at all. Those of Cabinet Ministers can be canvassed only by the method of asking the Prime Minister whether they represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
This form of Question is not available, however, in respect of a speech by the Prime Minister himself; because it would suggest its own answer. Accordingly, it has for some years been accepted that a Question asking the Prime Minister to place a copy of one of his speeeches in the Library is a legitimate foundation for supplementary questions regarding the content of that speech.
The right of hon. Members to ask Questions about public speeches by senior Ministers has long been established, and I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the House for Members to be totally prevented from asking about those made by the most senior Minister of all. I rule accordingly that Questions in this particular form, singled out as they are for special reference in Erskine May, are sui generis and not capable of being blocked by an answer of a sort which would normally be interpreted as a refusal to answer further Questions.
I would also wish to confirm in public the private ruling given by my predecessor in 1969; namely, that Questions about speeches by the Prime Minister cannot be asked in any other form.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. You pointed out that this form of Questions to the Prime Minister has been known for some years. I myself once put a Question to Mr. Harold Macmillan asking whether one of his speeches represented the policy of the Government, but that Question was refused by the Table—properly, it should be noted. It should be noted also that it was only in about 1964 that the practice of asking for copies of speeches to be put in the Library was developed. The practice grew up early in 1964, I think on this side of the House, and it was developed thereafter.
The House will be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for making it clear that this agreeable practice may continue.

The Prime Minister: I also thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. As I told the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), if the House wishes to put down repetitive Questions of this kind it is a matter for the House, and I will answer them.

Mr. Paget: Do we not experience a somewhat absurd situation when, at Prime Minister's Questions day after day, 10 hon. Members wish him to put his own speech in the Library and 20 hon. Members want to know whether he agrees with his Cabinet colleagues?
Would it not be more convenient—this is really a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure—if a Question not merely asked whether the Prime Minister agreed with his Cabinet colleague's

speech but also included some words to indicate which portion of the speech and which statement was questioned, and, as to the Prime Minister's own speeches, if there were an indication as to the passage it was desired to challenge? It would make it more intelligible for those who wished to read the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: However that may be, I have ruled on the point that I was asked to rule upon.

INTERNATIONAL COMPUTERS LIMITED

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Government support for International Computers Limited.
The Government have discussed with ICL, in the light of the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the finance required for the company's R and D programme. The Government believe that the capability to develop, manufacture and market computer systems which ICL represents should be maintained in this country so that the company can play its part in a strong industry in Europe.
We have agreed, therefore, to provide the support of £14·2 million during the period up to September, 1973, for which the company has asked in order to maintain the momentum of its R and D programme. The Government are in touch with the new management about the company's long-term needs.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, though to confer £14 million of public money in a statement of 130 words leaves some questions to be asked; and I want to put them.
Will the Minister comment on the discrepancy between the £50 million which the Select Committee recommended and the sum arrived at? In what form is the support to be given? Is it to be given in equity or by loan or by grant? Is the Government director to remain on the board?
Under what powers is the money to be given? Is it to be given under the Industry Bill; and, if so, under what Clause? Is it the Clause that expires


at the date of the transitional period for entry into the Common Market?
Do the Government intend to publish comparable figures to those which were published in 1968 when the original support was brought forward? Will there be any provision for parliamentary approval, as there was under the Industrial Expansion Act? Under what conditions has the money been granted? Does the phrase "a strong industry in Europe" convey, as would appear, a total rejection of an American take-over for this company which has been much speculated upon? Does it contain a condition that the company must merge with European computer companies?
Finally, do the Government intend to make any statement about the 20 recommendations of the Select Committee on the Computer Industry dealing with public purchasing policy, with the establishment of a computer purchasing board with preference for British computers, with the establishment of a research and development board, and with the need to publish much more information, in contrast with the brevity of the statement made today?

Mr. Chataway: The right hon. Gentleman asked, first, whether this sum was sufficient, and he referred to the recommendation of the Select Committee that £50 million a year should be granted to the computer industry. The company has asked for support for its R and D of £14·2 million to September, 1973, and the Government are satisfied that this is justified.
The finance will be made available under Clause 8 of the Industry Bill. The intention is that the £14·2 million provided in support of the research and development of the company will be recovered by a royalty on subsequent sales or a levy on profits. In this we are following past practice.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the approach from Burroughs. The company has had discussions with a number of companies in the past and would no doubt consider any association that might strengthen its commercial position, but the Government's view is that any possible association with an overseas firm should provide for the maintenance of

a substantial computer research and development, manufacturing and marketing capability, controlled in this country. The Government are not making it a condition of support for ICL that it should arrive at a merger with other European companies, though the Government take the view in this, the Government give the company their full support—that close co-operation with European companies must make sense.

Mr. Neave: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement so far as it goes. However, when does he intend to deal with the far more fundamental issues raised by the Report of the Select Committee as to the long-term health of the industry? For instance, does he intend without delay to abolish single tendering?

Mr. Chataway: I am very much aware that there are issues raised by the Select Committee on which the House will wish to have further reactions from the Government. My hon. Friend knows that statements have already been made by the Government on support for the software industry, on the setting up of the Central Computer Agency, and a number of other matters which deal with recommendations by the Select Committee. The Government intend that the arrangements for public purchasing, which were announced in March last year, should continue for the present. I hope that a further announcement giving the Government's response to the remaining recommendations of the Select Committee will be made in the near future.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the North-West ICL is synonymous with West Gorton, in my constituency, where the company has its headquarters? Will he assure the House that the welcome announcement he has now made will set ICL on a course which will prevent any further redundancies at West Gorton of the kind which have greatly distressed my constituents and other people in the Manchester area?

Mr. Chataway: ICL is unquestionably one of the leading computer companies in Europe. It is, in fact, the only computer company which has won a larger share of its home market than IBM. Clearly, this is an important national asset. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any categorical assurance about future levels of


employment. That, clearly, would be a matter for the company.

Sir R. Cary: Will my right hon. Friend's announcement be helpful to individual computer centres such as Manchester College of Science and Technology? We must have a thriving computer industry in this country.

Mr. Chataway: I believe it will be helpful. I agree that it is very much in the interests of computer users in this country that there should be a healthy British computer company.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As another Member for whom ICL is one of the largest employers in a constituency sense, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, to be more clear about what he means by the continuation of the present tendering arrangements "for the present"? He must be aware that the computer industry has found the "Buy British" policy very significant as a form of support. Secondly, will he tell us about his intentions beyond 1973? As he will appreciate, launching aid for research and development makes sense only on a long-term programme. A one-year programme alone will not create much confidence in the British computer industry.

Mr. Chataway: I accept what the hon. Lady has said about the importance of the longer term. As I mentioned, we are in touch with the company about its longer-term needs, but it was more concerned at this time with its research and development until September next year. The Government's procurement policy at the moment includes single tendering primarily wth ICL for large and associated computers. The details were given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in March last year. We are looking at a number of the Select Committee's recommendations. The Government's present intention is that that policy should continue.

Mr. John Hall: May I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether the royalty is to be paid on all sales or only on sales arising out of equipment derived from the new research and development? Secondly, following the question asked by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) will he give the House some

idea of the long-term research and development projects of this company, because it is inconceivable to me that it could stop at £14·2 million? [Interruption.] That is likely to be only for the first year, and it is unlikely that sales will generate enough funds to maintain that research and development without considerable additional help. Will he give some indication of what that is likely to be?

Mr. Chataway: My hon. Friend is right I do not know why it should give rise to ribaldry that a company engaged in advanced technology of this kind must have a long-term research and development programme. For that reason I made it clear in my statement that we are discussing with the company the nature of that programme beyond 1973. I will certainly inform the House as soon as we have a clearer picture of that aspect.
My hon. Friend asked about the exact naure of the recovery of the £14·2 million. We are still negotiating with the company whether it should be recovered by means of royalties on subsequent sales or by a levy on profits. In either eventuality, it would be related to the research and development for which this money is given in support.

Mr. Strang: While welcoming this necessary help for ICL's research and development programme, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that ICL is not the whole British computer industry? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to make a full statement in the near future outlining the Government's comprehensive reaction to all the proposals of the Select Committee? In particular, may we look forward to substantial assistance for other sections of the British computer industry?

Mr. Chataway: I entirely appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. The Select Committee's recommendations go beyond the needs of ICL. I hope to be able to make a statement on those recommendations with which I have not dealt this afternoon.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while his statement will be greatly welcomed by ICL and those who work for it, he must bear


in mind in future that many foreign-owned computer companies which employ substantial numbers of people, particularly in Scotland, are facing a difficult situation because of apparent discrimination against foreign companies?

Mr. Chataway: We very much welcome the presence of American computer companies in this country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Honeywell and Burroughs and a number of other companies make substantial contributions, particularly in Scotland. I accept that the policy pursued by the British Government must be fair to them.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will want to debate this matter more fully: first, to consider whether the scale is adequate compared with the needs; secondly, to consider what guarantee there can be of continuity of support, as he has chosen a Clause in the Industry Bill which expires in 1977; and, thirdly, to consider why the Government should not have adopted the policy of the Labour Government that when research and development aid on this scale is to be put up it should be in the form of equity specifically authorised by Parliament? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide time quickly to

allow his statement and the long and detailed report of the Select Committee to be debated?

Mr. Chataway: The question of a debate is not for me. Concerning Clause 8 of the Industry Bill, we are intent upon ensuring that there is continuity and certainty. By putting a date into that Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously explained, we are giving an assurance that these arrangements will be maintained for some time.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction in the content of a supplementary question which I put to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications on Wednesday, 28th June, c. 1420. In that supplementary question I cast aspersions on the manner by which the Harlech and Thames television companies had obtained their franchises. I wish now to state that I should have referred to London Weekend company, not to the Thames company. I apologise for the error and for any distress which, inadvertently, I may have caused the Thames Company. It is very difficult to keep track of these matters.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to move his Motion I should inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move,
That this House censures Her Majesty's Government for the grave injuries to good industrial relations and the general reputation of the law caused by the operation of the Industrial Relations Act, exacerbated by the Government's divisive policy of industry confrontation, and demands that the Government should take immediate steps to repeal it before further damage is done.
In a very real sense this debate is a continuation of last Thursday's. Our indictment of the Government is on five counts. First, before the General Election and throughout their period as Government they have consistently regarded the world of industrial relations as a battleground for ideological confrontations, as part of a wider political conflict. Secondly, they have imported into Britain's system of industrial relations—that is to say, human relations—an alien, irrelevant and provocative framework of unworkable legalistic concepts. Thirdly, industrial relations legislation, worked out with singular lack of skill and unprecedented amateurism by the Government's Law Officers, incapable of understanding or reflecting the human issues involved, and rushed through Parliament with inadequate discussion owing to the guillotine, has proved incomprehensible to the courts and to industry, and has led to total confusion and unnecessary division and bitterness in industrial relations.
Fourthly, the introduction of the Inns of Court Conservative Association's concept of law into industrial relations, as presented by the association to the Donovan Commission, and rejected by

that commission, has been associated, case by case, with a calculated series of industrial confrontations forced by the Government for political purposes, and with an invocation of the law subordinated to, and discredited by, political considerations. Fifthly, in these past weeks the law has been clumsily invoked, against a background of Press briefing and provocative political speeches, not for its declared purpose of improving industrial relations but for the enforcement of a clandestine incomes policy the existence of which Ministers have denied in statements in Parliament.
That the National Industrial Relations Court was created under a law forcing it to be a puppet court of the Executive, related not to better industrial relations but to incomes policy, has been clear for some time. Lest there be any doubt, and for greater accuracy, the Lord President made it clear in his winding-up speech last Thursday. He gave the game away. His subconscious was showing, and a very substantial subconscious as it proved. He was pronouncing last Thursday a ritualistic reference to the Labour Government's proposals on industrial relations in Cmnd. 3888 "In Place of Strife", and he said—I admit that he was under pressure at the time—referring to our declared desire to secure the co-operation of the trade union movement:
They"—
that is we—
dropped 'In Place of Strife' to get such co-operation. What happened? In the year after dropping it, wage rates went up by almost 10 per cent. compared with only 5 per cent. the year before. Is that what we are to do?"—[Official Report, 29th June, 1972: Vol. 839, c. 1808.]
In his mind, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to reduce the toll of strikes are directly related to reducing wage increases.
I shall refer later to "In Place of Strife". The purpose of "In Place of Strife" and of the Downing Street agreement with the TUC was to improve industrial relations, to end demarcation disputes, to secure some control over unconstitutional "wild-cat strikes". So, we were told, was the purpose of the Conservatives "Fair Deal at Work", the Inns of Court Conservative Association's proposals and the Tory Manifesto—not to enforce an incomes policy. The Tories


never told the people that in the General Election. Indeed, they repudiated any such thought in the election whether on any basis, statutory or voluntary. Now we learn from the Lord President the true motive. The invocation of the law is to enforce a Conservative incomes policy which they have denied whenever they have been questioned about it in the House. In their teeth they have denied it in the House.
All parties—before and since the election—have agreed on one thing; namely, that there is a problem—a serious problem—and that the nation cannot afford a single man-day lost through industrial disputes. We may have different approaches to solving the problem. Ours was based on the wise words of Donovan, on reforms of industrial relations from within industry, on the TUC documents "Programme for Action" and "Good Industrial Relations", on the human realities of these problems, on shop steward education, the lot which I commend to the House, and above all to the Prime Minister, to read, study and apply. In "In Place of Strife" we made three statutory proposals. I shall come to that.
In the period before the General Election the Conservatives made their proposals in season, out of season, especially in the polling season—not a parliamentary by-election, even the GLC elections of 1970; but the right hon. Gentleman was on the stump in cities and towns all over the country. The weekend before the GLC elections we had his address to the Conservative trade unionists, the political wing of the National Amalagamated Association of Blacklegs. There was also a speech the following night to the innocent long-suffering News-vendors Benevolent Institution.
On the eve of five by-elections the right hon. Gentleman spoke on this subject in Croydon in October, 1969, and he proclaimed one message, as he did during the General Election, that he had a plan to reduce the ghastly toll of man-days lost through industrial stoppages. We were to get a new dawn, a new era of industrial peace if only he were elected. This, as much as prices, as much as unemployment, as much as the full-hearted consent of the British people for going into the Common Market—all of those constituted a false prospectus of

calculated Conservative electoral deception.
Now we have the grisly reality of the right hon. Gentleman's performance. In five years eight months—68 months—of the Labour Government there were 24,045,000 man-days lost through industrial disputes. Too many; they would have been far more if we had not in those days had a Prime Minister who was not so stiff-necked as not to be willing to step in and settle a few strikes, including averting two major rail strikes—with the men going out of No. 10 with not a penny more than they came in, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that—to say nothing of the settlement of the newspaper strike during the General Election, allowing Conservative papers to continue their lies against the Labour Government.
Against the 24 million man-days lost in 68 months of the Labour Government, the prophets of the new dawn for industrial relations opposite in 23 months have presided over the loss not of 24 million but of 37,096,000 man-days through disputes—in 23 months 54·3 per cent. more than in 68 months of the Labour Government. Per month, under Labour, the figure was 401,000 days. Under the Conservatives it is 1,613,000 days—more than four times as many. Strangely, when these figures have been announced the Conservative Press has failed to "please copy". Perhaps it will do it tomorrow.
This, apparently, is a Conservative triumph. This is the new style of Government that we were promised, though we have found the right hon. Gentleman singularly reluctant to mouth the figures. Every time he speaks in the House he seeks refuge not in more days of production lost but in fewer strikes. Fewer, smaller strikes—vote Conservative for bigger and better strikes. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of those hard-faced chairmen of those accident-prone early Victorian railways:
Your directors draw attention to a safety record of which we may be proud. We have had fewer accidents, and, in particular, fewer minor accidents. There is that little matter about our having killed four times as many passengers.
The one Tory alibi in this debate, as in all the others, will be "In Place of Strife". The Labour Government made three so-called penal proposals out of


25 action points. After consultation, and after a study of the American experience, we dropped one of them—compulsory ballots. We did so for the reason that a ballot showing a majority for a particular settlement ties the hands of trade union leaders, makes it harder for them to compromise and a strike, once having started, harder for them to settle it. The recent railway ballot proved that up to the hilt. A pre-strike ballot would have made any settlement at Jarratt or Jarrattplus impossible. A ballot does not strengthen the elected leaders; it hobbles them.
The second issue referred to inter-union problems, demarcation, recognition, who does what, who sits where, apprentices and so on. This was a major cause of lost time in the 1950s and 1960s. As a direct result of our consultations over "In Place of Strife" the TUC took action and received authority at the Croydon conference. It was given full powers to arbitrate in all these matters, full powers of binding arbitration. There have been very few disputes of that kind in the past two years. If that had not been so, the Tory record of 37 million man-days lost would have been much higher. They have the TUC and "In Place of Strife" to thank.
Croydon did not provide a full answer to Girling-type unconstitutional disputes. The Downing Street agreement was a major step forward, and the Conservatives have gained by it. There were fewer such strikes, demarcation disputes, wildcat strikes, in the year before June, 1970, and fewer still since, thanks not to the present Government, and certainly not to the Industrial Relations Act, but to our agreement with the TUC. But for the Downing Street agreement and action taken by the TUC, the situation would have been much worse over the past two years.
Under the Tories, the Prime Minister has contemptuously dismissed the TUC and Mr. Feather from the scene. The Tories know that because of the powers conceded by individual unions at the time of the Downing Street agreement he has, even so, settled disputes the Government could not settle—the electricians' dispute for one and the railway dispute for another.
Our Motion and my opening indictment referred to the Government's calculated

policy of confrontation, right from that halcyon summer of 1970, those first magical days—arms for South Africa, the revocation by the Secretary of State for Education and Science of Circular 10/65. Those were happy days. The Prime Minister had hardly closed the Downing Street door behind him after his pledge to unite the nation than he set about dividing it. In no time at all we had the dock strike, unnecessary and contrived. The TUC was put in baulk; it could not intervene. We had chaos in the docks and a national State of Emergency, the Home Secretary marching up the Floor of the House, exports affected, food shortages, higher prices, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food saying "Let them eat peaches". A quick settlement on precisely the terms we could have had without a strike was reached after two weeks of strike. But the Government's authority had been asserted, or so we were all told.
Then there was the doctrine of the norm, the N-1 formula, conceived on Mount Olympus and peddled to the Press, but never announced in Parliament; indeed, categorically denied in Parliament by Ministers. All that was needed was a suitable sacrificial victim, and miraculously one presented itself, the local authority manual workers. They had all the qualifications. They were low-paid said to be poorly-organised, and were in the public sector. The whole arena was duly laid out for the confrontation, and the heraldic trumpets were sounded. Garter Times. Mail, Express and Telegraph pursuivant. We waited to see what the Prime Minister would do. After three ideological weeks in which he reduced London and other cities to a mass of stinking garbage, with our rivers polluted, he was unhorsed. N-1 equalled 16 per cent., and the right hon. Gentleman's only compensation was a pettish outburst against Sir Jack Scamp, who incidentally has the distinctions of having settled even more disputes than the Prime Minister has aggravated. Sir Jack Scamp's fellow-arbitrator, Dr. Hugh Clegg, was incontinently dismissed from the chairmanship of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. Nothing like the firm smack of peevish government!
Episode three was the electricians' dispute. There was moderate leadership there. I hope the Prime Minister will


agree that there was not one of those extremists elected to union leadership during the period of the Labour Government which he so mysteriously talked about last Thursday at Question Time. But it was a good dispute for the Government. It had the merit of being unpopular—electricity cuts, cold comfort at the electric cooker, Christmas shops unlit. Things were going well. Then, just as the Government were exploiting the situation, Frank Chapple, that well-known extremist elected during the period of the Labour Government—worse, Frank Chapple aided and abetted by Vic Feather—struck. The strike ended. Nevertheless, we were told it was a great Government victory—N-½. Then it transpired, when we had Wilberforce Mark I, that the electricians' case had been justified all along. But still it was a famous victory.
Next there were the postmen, again in the public sector, low-paid, with no strike funds, desperate. The Post Offices's Chairman was sacked just in time, lest he be minded to exercise the independent rôle laid on him by the Post Office Act. There was the Government's great victory, with all those cartoons of the triumphant angler, with the stuffed, moustachioed, UPW fish in the display cabinet. Six month's later there was one of the Post Office fish, a grim angler and an empty cabinet labelled "Waiting for the Miners". But that was less than prophetic.
So throughout the spring and summer last year the stage was set. The Prime Minister withdrew into Europe. Unemployment was rising to unprecedented heights. Food prices were forced up with the introduction of food levies. The housing finance White Paper was published, forcing up prices. There was the Budget. Property speculators were set free. As prices rose and rose, we had the ministerial alibis. As property prices rose, as land changed hands again and again, we learned that it was all the fault of the men on £16 a week who were asking for a minimum of £20 a week. In inner London, Victorian working-class houses were changing hands at £8,000, then £10,000, and then more and more. It was all the fault of the workers, we were told. No doubt it was a post-mortem wage application with retrospective effect on behalf
of the long-dead Victorian craftsmen who built them. The Treasury pumped out money like water, to the wrong people, and the gnomes watched.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went on the BBC to tell the people that the Prime Minister had not intended to be taken seriously in his election promises. As summer gave way to autumn he watched the increase in meat prices, due to the excessive £16 a week wage for farm workers. At least he must have been responsible for the advice that we could all buy pheasants. The Chief Whip and I, comparing our constituency reports, agreed that pheasants were rising well in Bermondsey and Knotty Ash. That was the kind of advice we were getting from the Government at that time, while they were setting the stage for the next confrontation, which was with the miners.
Out of our characteristic and unbounded compassion, I will pass briefly over the history of the miners' dispute. I do so out of consideration for the Prime Minister, who would like to forget it—what the Press said at the time, the briefings, the flexing of muscles, the fight to a finish, the uncertain support of the miners for their leaders, the unprecedentedly high level of coal stocks at the power stations. And then the outcome.
I would merely note the following lessons. First, there was the Government's insistence, even at the end, on fighting the dispute politically. The Prime Minister, who had fastidiously eschewed any contact with the miners' executive throughout that period, made an appeal to it, after six weeks of the strike and he made it at a political meeting of the Liverpool Conservatives—my constituents, a diminishing number of them, and their neighbours. Whatever may be said of the Liverpool Conservatives, there are few miners among them. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman cancel the engagement? It was the day of the industrial blackout, the announcement of 3 million men stood off, of exports paralysed. If the right hon. Gentleman had anything to say to the miners, why did he not say it to the NUM executive? Second was the fact that the National Coal Board was not a free agent. We had the public complaint of a member of the board in mid-January that it was not


given sufficient elbow-room by the Government.
And it ended in Downing Street with the beer and sandwiches. How the right hon. Gentleman's gorge must have risen as he poured out the beer. Even then, there was complaint that the ale was stale—stale beer: small wonder—it had been in the Downing Street cellars since the newspaper strike, 20 months and 34·7 million lost man-days before. And the settlement in Downing Street? Wilberforce - N + 10, and £8 million more on top.
And even now the Prime Minister has not learned the lesson. After the deluge I asked him to consider the financial problem I put to him—and repeated last Thursday—of giving the workers in labour-intensive public industries and services wages comparable with those in private industry, to which they are entitled, without its leading to large increases in charges, fares and prices and stimulating inflation throughout the economy. The right hon. Gentleman promised to study the implications, but four months later—that was on 4th March—we have had no answer from him. I hope that perhaps we shall get it from him today.
Then we had the railway men. This was to be different. The Industrial Relations Act was in force, and NIRC was established—Daniel himself come to judgment in the unlikely shape of the President of NIRC. Now the Act could be invoked. We could have a cooling-off period. We could have a ballot. But the miners had had their cooling-off period for four months and it had only hotted things up. They had, in accordance with their constitution, taken a ballot, which showed 58 per cent. for strike action and 42 per cent. against. What could have been more pathetic than the Government briefing that the 42 per cent. would soon become a majority? The Prime Minister entirely misconceived the determination, the solidarity of the miners and their wives, and of the whole mining community. He does not know the miners. They are people. If the vote had been 50·1 per cent. against 49·9 per cent. for, they would have been solid. That is what happened in Nottingham.
So the right hon. Gentleman turned in his humiliation to the railway men. If it had not been for that humiliation we

would not have had this confrontation, the briefing, the hardening of attitudes, the ludicrous invocation of the Industrial Court. It was all because of the miners. That is the trouble with the Prime Minister—his characteristic, the hallmark of all the Bourbons throughout all the ages; he learns nothing and he forgets nothing. Everyone but the Prime Minister recognises that Vic Feather was right; that the railway dispute could have been settled earlier at less cost without the disruption, without the suffering of the commuters. If we had had the application of a little less uncommon law and a little more common sense and common humanity, this could have been done.
Our indictment refers to the invocation of the law, so let us examine that. We had a cooling-off period, with a desperate Secretary of State playing for time. He knew when he applied to the court that there was no question of fulfilling the requirements of the Act. There was no prospect of meaningful negotiation, of conciliation, no prospect of arbitration, because the Government were determined to allow none. The Railway Board was under the wraps of a Government diktat. The Secretary of State dared not apply for an extension of the cooling-off period when it ended because he could not have satisfied even the court that what the Government had interdicted in the first cooling-off period would be available in the second.
On the ballot—here we have a remarkable state of affairs, so far unquestionable in Parliament. Under this extraordinary law the court could not question the judgment of the Minister that he had reason to think that the three experienced union leaders were not speaking for their members. All the court could decide was whether the signature on the application was or was not a forgery—I have no reason to think that that was open to question—and that the Minister was sane when he signed it. Yet the court had to rule on the national interest.
This is a complete perversion of the rôle of Parliament and the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Owing to the sub judice rule, we could not at that time question the Minister's judgment. But when it was no longer sub judice the Minister obstinately, and, I would argue, unconstitutionally, refused


to give his reasons to Parliament. Secondly, I would assert that Parliament throughout the years has been and should be the judge of the national interest; that is not properly the function of a court of law.
So we had the miserable story. We had the build up; the reports of the 1922 Committee, the banging of desks in support of the tough Ministers; the demands that the miseries of the commuters should not have been in vain. And then we had the six to one majority in the ballot—even on this ludicrously-drafted ballot question—which cost some £200,000 to the taxpayer. If councils supplying school milk can be surcharged, what should be the penalty for this act of stupidity on the part of the Minister?
Again we had the political intervention. We had the Chancellor of the Exchequer's dramatic descent on the Conservative Political Centre; the sudden Press call, at the very moment when the unions were seriously considering arbitration. He could only have made it more difficult. And we had the Whit weekend speech of the Prime Minister at the Tory carnival at Luton Hoo. Let the Chancellor and the Prime Minister read those speeches again now, after all that has happened. Let the Prime Minister look back now on the publicity buildup. The punch-drunk boxer, fanned by his seconds; the champ who was going to deal with any challenger who came along.
We must also consider the rôle to which the Government reduced British Rail—a pawn of Government policy throughout all those weeks—and, when the battle was over, the Government's unctuous and ostentatious washing of ministerial hands of all responsibility. No—now it was entirely the responsibility of British Rail to settle the amount of ministerial humiliation.
I must now refer to the rôle of the court in relation to the docks. Many hon. Members on both sides have the honour of representing dock workers. I personally represent as many as does any other hon. Member. Over 27 years I have come to know very many of them personally; their families, their children, their memories, their anxieties. Some of us knew the Merseyside dockers before the war when, under the casual system, the

best they could hope for was to fight, like animals in cages, for a ticket entitling them to half a day's work. Those old wounds and old memories fester.
We have known them through decasualisation, under Devlin—the teething pains and growing pains of decasualisation—and we all know their anxieties today in facing as brutal a challenge to their security as any workers have suffered from the remorseless onward march of technological change and of shifting trade patterns. And into this situation the Government interposed the cold arid hand of the law; of the courts forced by that in considered law to give the wrong answers to the wrong questions.
And in these weeks we have seen employers and trade union representatives—and here I repeat the tribute I have paid outside to the Secretary of State—approaching these problems with real humanity and understanding. I have publicly praised the statesmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington—not long ago a respected and wise Member of this House—and Mr. Jack Jones leading the other side. I do not know whether Mr. Jack Jones was one of the extremists about whom the Prime Minister was talking last Thursday; perhaps he will tell us.
But the tensions of the container revolution at the moment threatened a national dock strike which, as we now know, could have been ruinous to the national interest. On Wednesday, June 14th, that strike was averted, for six weeks anyway, and perhaps totally. But two days later the nation awaited a dock strike nevertheless—a totally unnecessary strike created by the unholy alliance of the Solicitor-General, NIRC and, for one hour of brief glory, the tipstaff. Then impending tragedy degenerated into total farce. The Times law reports read like nothing so much as a review of a musical of Bardwell v. Pickwick. The strike was off—no thanks to the Government, but contrary to the best efforts of the Government, though that Friday I joined them in their unexpressed relief. Their Act, forced through a gagged Parliament, just failed to plunge the nation into a national emergency. It did not fail to embitter beyond belief industrial relations on the waterfront. It totally discredited the law and the courts.
So let us now consider on the Governments deus ex machina—the insertion of the law and the court into industrial relations.
The British system of industrial relations, admittedly imperfect—that was what Donovan was about—has been built up by wise men on both sides of industry, and men skilled in conciliation and arbitration, in all the years of this century. It is axiomatic that what wise men can create over half a century can be destroyed by a fool in a few minutes. That is not my recollection today.
But what wise men created over many years can be destroyed in weeks by a group of ideologues, and that is what has happened. I spoke to two men who have served on arbitration tribunals—the National Arbitration Tribunal and the rest—and they are heartbroken at what the Government have done to what they and others like them have tried to do for half a century.
Last week the Secretary of State gave his verdict. He was addressing the Foreign Press Association. He was euphoric about the Industrial Relations Act. He said:
All my recent evidence is that the legislation is succeeding beyond expectation in its first aim; to concentrate industry's mind"—
and he stressed management in particular—
on improving industrial relations.
I suppose if he had been responsible for designing the Tay bridge, he would have been there among the ruins the day after the disaster claiming to have succeeded beyond expectation in concentrating the nation's mind on the problems of railway engineering.
But to be fair to him, he was not the architect of this legislation. Here we must turn to the egregious contribution of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. I can just see him somewhere on the corner. The hon. and learned Gentleman is learned in the law but as ignorant of the problems of the British people and the nature of industrial relations in this country as a novice in a nunnery. If the law is not an ass, none would under-rate the Solicitor-General's efforts to make it one. In the process of making an ass of the Courts, we know our Solicitor-General—we have come to know him—took the Inns of Court proposals and compounded

them. In the course or a short but dedicated political career, he has endeared himself to so many outside industry by drafting apparently innocent Bills, which, regardless of their main purpose, tend to become the vehicle for gagging Parliament and destroying Parliamentary rights which have been unchallenged for centuries.
In his devoted labours he has been assisted by the Government's unprecedented predeliction for gagging Parliamentary discussion on fundamental constitutional changes. That will be known by my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been concerned with the European Communities Bill. His virtuosity in that regard should not blind us to his achievements on the Industrial Relations Act, on which he served his constitutional apprenticeship. In our innocence—not then knowing the hon. and learned Gentleman—we thought that his main aim was merely to remove long-established safeguards which trade unions had enjoyed over the years, some of them for over a century. But we now see more clearly that he was only exercising his apprentice hand in a more dedicated effort at destroying parliamentary rights and safeguards.
The Prime Minister, now so humiliated by the unselfish efforts of his hon. and learned Friend, may be wondering what to do with him. Apart from recommending him for another of these prizes, the Strafford Prize or the Earl of Wentworth prize—no one has done more than Strafford to destroy parliamentary liberties—I suggest a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor for an early removal to the Bench—the Lord Chancellor is notoriously not choosey in other matters—provided the hon. and learned Gentleman's judicial duties are confined to matters excluding any which affect ordinary human beings.
But while the hon. and learned Gentleman sinks below the waves—[Interruption.]—we have put up with a lot on this side, including all those late sittings voting on Amendments which we were never allowed to debate. However, while the Solicitor-General sinks below the waves—the "in" word is "floating"—his monument remains in the Industrial Relations Act, a law which is totally incomprehensible.

Mr. Peter Rost: Would the right hon. Gentleman repeal that?

Mr. Wilson: Yes. What one court decides another rejects. The courts are agreed only on one thing, the Act's incomprehensibility. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite, as they tramped through the lobbies on those undebated Amendments, ever intended that the Industrial Relations Act should become a legal tombola.
Let us take the shop steward syndrome. Under the law, what are they? Are they servants under master and servant legislation, or are they agents? It was held one way by one court and then it was held, whatever it was, to be the opposite. The mind reels on reading the reports. Now the matter comes to appeal and the House of Lords will provide the final legal answer. But the shop stewards want to know what they are. They may find language, not necessarily expressed in legal terminology, to describe the Solicitor-General, the Lord President, who, to his credit—and it is fair to say this—never pretended to understand the Act, the Prime Minister, the courts of law and, this at least I regret, the high court of Parliament.
What the Act does—I refer again to dockland—is serious in real terms. The Prime Minister referred to extremists last week and I hope that he will explain that reference this afternoon, for he has still to identify them before he meets them tomorrow. The Prime Minister must recognise that his Act is a charter for militants, extremists and for those who seek to undermine the authority of the elected leadership and the elected trade union executives.
I should like for a moment to take the Prime Minister on an imaginary tour of the Liverpool waterfront. Probably that is as near as he will ever get. I will arrive by train, Euston to Lime Street. The Prime Minister can arrive by sea if he wishes. We will meet the shop stewards. We may also meet the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board which he bankrupted in his lame duck period. We will instruct him in the history of dock rivalries—the blue union and the white union. The Solicitor-General, who represented a Merseyside constituency not long ago but does not seem to have learned anything, can instruct the Prime Minister

how the unions got their names. We will tell him of the 1955 strike when, within a single family, brother fought brother and even militant white card holders went through the picket lines manned by the blue-card-holding members of the same family. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen had seen the agony within families at Merseyside—perhaps the Solicitor-General can confirm this—they would not be laughing like that.
Under the Act, on the holding of the lower court, we had the threat of a shop steward being disciplined under the ruling of the court and perhaps gaoled. What did they expect? The whole history of freedom in this country is one of willing martyrs, be they nice men or not. If one man is gaoled under this Act he will be replaced by another and another and another. The more the leadership tries to carry out the edict of the court, the more we shall see militant superseded by super-militant, the more we shall see an exodus from one union to another and fractricidal division on the waterfront. I hope that the Prime Minister will deal with these issues in the debate. Tomorrow he meets the TUC. We wish him well. His or their terms of reference, the attack on inflation, are important to us
.
Last Thursday I gave him suggested terms of reference for a viable policy to deal with inflation: the TUC proposals for a threshold, price-related wage arrangements—I am glad to see in the Press that the Government after 17 months seem to be turning to this idea—Government-exercised control of strategic prices, of the remuneration of top people, of rents and dividends, the restoration of the consumer council, the repeal of food levies, the dropping of the Housing Finance Bills for England and Scotland, the control of land prices and property speculation, the repeal of the sterilising Industrial Relations Act, which is the Prime Minister's worst enemy in these negotiations, and a moratorium on the value added tax.
I have quoted the Prime Minister's reference to extremists at Question Time last Thursday. Of course, the House is becoming acclimatised to these petulant patches we have come to expect between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The right hon. Gentleman referred to prices and incomes last week


and what he considered the consequential effects in terms of the election of extremist trade union officers. Today he will no doubt identify them, because tomorrow he is going cap in hand to the extremists to see whether they will bail him out with an anti-inflation policy instead of divisiveness. I should rather send Mike Yarwood, as long as I write his brief.
But this debate derives from the railway dispute and the coal dispute. Whom did he have in his mind in these disputes as the extremists? Sid Greene, who was elected before the Labour Government, as a matter of fact? Percy Goldrick? Is he a militant? Ray Buckton? True, he has a Yorkshire accent. Or did he have in mind Joe Gormley of the miners' union? This afternoon's Evening Standard has a headline—
Wages: Miners' Leader Urges Men to Cool If.
Is that the action of an extremist?
Tonight I am going by night sleeper to the NUM annual conference and I shall be seeing the militant Joe Gormley tomorrow morning. This is my sixth trade union conference or function in a month. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will let me suggest to Mr. Gormley that the Prime Minister himself should address the NUM later this week. He will have a warm receiption. In two years how many trade union conferences has he addressed? So far as I know, one—the local government officers. They are certainly militant and they followed his speech by deregistering.
How many trade union executives has the right hon. Gentleman met? How many times has he met workers on the job in the shipyards—I mean the shipyards, not the yacht-building yards? How often has he sat down with the shipyard workers? He could have been to meet the workers in the real shipyards. The shipyards are full of anxieties, some of them caused by his Government, and he could have been to see the workers there, as did some of his predecessors.
How often has the right hon. Gentleman sat down with shipyard workers, with the men on the job, as I did on Tyneside and Clydeside? Why can he not discuss their problems with pit workers coming off shift, with engineers in one kind of factory after another?

Has he done it? If so, why has he not reported to the House?
On his regional visits, how often has he met local trade union representatives, not as part of the regional planning council, and asked them to discuss their problems and anxieties with him? As for trade union executive, how often has he met the miners' executive, not in a wage confrontation but at other times, to hear their anxieties? When the miners' strike occurred, the NUM executive and the NUM president had never been to No. 10 under this Government. That is rather different from what had happened before.
How many shop stewards has the right hon. Gentleman met as Prime Minister. We hear a lot about shop stewards? Does he know what a shop steward is? How many workshop problems are solved day by day which, but for shop stewards, would escalate into major disputes and confrontations, swelling the already inflated dispute figures for which he bears responsibility? The uncaring Prime Minister has not met them. For him, even a cup of tea in the Tea Room would appear to be an unwarrantable concession to democracy, with all those trade union MPs sitting there.
The Prime Minister should try to meet the people he has been elected to lead. Some of them are the husbands of the housewives of Leicester and elsewhere whom he wooed so outrageously with his prices promises. More than that, they are the producers of the nation's wealth. Not an ingot of steel, not a ton of coal, not a yard of cotton, not a measure of farm produce is created except by the workers of this country, the men and women whom he disdains. For him, they are just an alibi for his failures, the bogymen with which to frighten his party supporters.
The right hon. Gentleman should realise that if the entire money-making community—the land speculators, the property speculators, the whole of the Stock Exchange, the exchange market speculators, the public relations profession and most of the lawyers—were all removed, at a stroke, to permanent tax-avoiding exile in the Cayman Islands, not one ton of production, not one machine tool, not one ship, not one mite of exports, not a single contribution to the


nation's investments would be lost, not if all his friends went. Yet he will not meet the people who are responsible for producing the nation's wealth.
In reconsidering his industrial relations policy, in rebuilding his shattered economic and financial policy and his taxation policy—and that will contribute a lot to the inflation of the next year—his social policy, let the Prime Minister be guided, however late, by one overriding consideration: how can he take counsel with, how can he take action for, not the hangers-on, not the manipulators, not the merger-manipulators, not the makers of money who are not the earners of money, but the producers of the nation's wealth and the nation's prosperity.

4.35 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'endorses the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide a framework, within the law, which will enable industrial relations in Britain to be improved, and which will contribute to the protection of the community from the damaging consequences of industrial disputes'.

Hon. Members: Oh!

The Prime Minister: Whatever the hilarity on the other side of the House may indicate, I doubt whether there is a more important subject for the House to discuss today in national affairs than the problems of industrial relations. No one who has had experience of them, particularly as a former Minister of Labour like myself—and perhaps I may indicate to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that I was dealing with the practical problems of the docks in Liverpool when I was Minister of Labour long before he had connection with them as Prime Minister—can fail to recognise that industrial relations are complex, difficult, frustrating and time-consuming. But, at the same time, good industrial relations are vital for the health of the nation. Nor can it be denied that they arouse deep feelings on both sides of industry, among the general public and, indeed, Governments.
Their sources are easy to discern—questions of individual rights, of collec-

tive privileges, of organisational responsibilities, of powerstructures—all these are involved. With their impact and that of sectional interests on the community as a whole, one can understand the intensity of feeling on these matters. When these factors lead to disruption of industrial production—avery eloquent passage towards the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech—for whatever reason disruption occurs, its impact on the economy and on the standard of living of the British people has now become apparent to all.
The greater the emotion that this subject engenders, surely the stronger are the arguments for the House examining the situation with a certain cool reason. This does not exclude us from recognising all the forces that are involved. Most of all, perhaps, we recognise the attitudes on both sides of industry which have become hardened by years of struggle by the unions, by the frustration and disillusionment of employers and by resentments of Governments, successive Governments, seeing their policies, which they genuinely believed to be in the national interest, damaged unnecessarily. It makes us realise that progress in these matters lies not along the paths of emotional extravagance but by means of calm appraisal of certain principles and practices which are necessary, indeed vital, for healthy industrial relations.
But this can with certainty be said: there has been more public discussion, more detailed and in greater depth, about industrial relations throughout Britain in the last five years than in the preceding 50. With the Act in operation, what goes on in industrial relations is being revealed to the public gaze and examined, as it should be, by statutory bodies in order to bring about its improvement.
In a democracy this is how it should be done, however hard it may be for some—unaccustomed to these matters or accustomed for so long to doing it in another way—to accept. This I believe, again, to be derived from the last Government's emphasis on the need to improve industrial relations, their proposals in "In Place of Strife" and the Bill which had a First Reading and from the present Act which has been carried by Parliament. Perhaps one thought came to my


mind listening to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who is not here today, said of her own Industrial Relations Bill:
I think the disease we are all going to suffer from in the next few months is the disease of misrepresentation. I am confident that, as one explains what the purpose of the Bill is, the trade union movement itself will begin to think again.
I have previously paid tribute to the courage which she displayed at that time, and I agree with the views which she also expressed then because I believe that the critics are having to think again and that there is now much greater understanding of the problem.
The sweeping demand for the abolition of the Industrial Relations Act in this Motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition can hardly be claimed to be based on rational reflection or on the working of the Act, which has been in operation for only four months. I am asking hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, believing that they are believers in a democratic process, to consider this matter seriously. We have just had a speech from the Leader of the Opposition about which I propose to make very little comment—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"]—except to say that it was frivolous and irrelevant. It was ignorant and motivated by malice, the malice of a man who tried to carry the reform which he saw to be essential and was frustrated by his own people in so doing.
In particular he devoted part of his speech to a vitriolic attack upon my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General unmindful of the fact apparently that, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out in a speech at Oxted last week, it was the right hon. Gentleman's own Government which appointed him to be a member of the Latey Committee, a most important committee, and a member of the Street Committee, and on the recommendations of that Committee based legislation on racial relations which the right hon. Gentleman's Government carried through. The Solicitor-General's home town is Aberavon where he has had experience of the problems of miners and twice fought elections. Others will pay tribute to what my hon. and learned Friend has done in community relations work in the East End, and I hope that

the Leader of the Opposition is thoroughly ashamed of his petty attack.
The only other comment I wish to make about the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that in the whole of it there was not one constructive idea for the improvement of the industrial relations which he and his Government said were vital for the economy and, above all, for the survival of his own Administration. He knows that was the reason why his own Administration was defeated at the hands of the electorate.
The right hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the particular problem of the cooling-off period and the ballot. He would have carried more conviction with most observers if these had not been proposals which he and his Government put their name to both in the White Paper and for the Bill. I am well aware of the differences and there are differences which are genuine and there are rightful grounds for debate between the two sides of the House. [Interruption.] The proposal for the ballot was in the White Paper and was dropped. The cooling-off period was in both.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Get it right.

The Prime Minister: I have explained the situation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would listen for a change.
I have never understood why the right hon. Gentleman thought that to put these powers in the hands of a Minister would be more acceptable to trade unions than to have them in the hands of a court. They would have been invoked by a Minister and carried by the Government's majority in Parliament, whichever colour that Government might have been. There would have been no opportunities for the parties to a dispute publicly to state their case, to have it examined and to give the public as a whole the opportunity to hear it. It would have been a purely governmental decision, open to the accusation that it was without check outside the political sphere. We have always believed it was right to act through the courts.
The right hon. Gentleman, because he disagrees with this, has to my regret adopted the policy of trying to undermine the High Court of this country. [Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] The right hon.


Gentleman in winding up on Thursday night referred to "puppet courts". Will hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer at an attempt to try to undermine the power of the High Court? I must confess I never expected to hear a former Prime Minister of this country refer to the High Court as a puppet court.
At the same time his hon. Friends have been attacking the judge in the Industrial Relations Court. Are they to suggest that, equally, those who formerly sat on the Front Bench as members of the Government and have since become judges are to be attacked on political grounds? What is to happen to the judicial system of this country if each party in turn attacks those who have left to take up high judicial office? On reflection the right hon. Gentleman will regret that he should have introduced this note into the debate on the problems facing us.

Mr. Harold Wilson: No one on this side of the House has undermined the High Court. That was done by the Court of Appeal. As to the reference to puppet courts, I said in the hearing of the right hon. Gentleman that it was the Government's law that made it a puppet court, not its actions.

The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not it is a puppet court?

Mr. Harold Wilson: Yes. It was created by the present Government—[Interruption.] I repeat what I have said. It was created by the present Government to be a puppet court.

The Prime Minister: I ask the right hon. Gentleman: is it a puppet court or not?

Mr. Harold Wilson: I repeat, it is a puppet court—[Interruption.]—created by this Government to be a puppet court.

The Prime Minister: It was not created by the Government for that purpose. The right hon. Gentleman has now categorically undermined the status of the court. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he will sweep it away. Lord Donovan who has been rightly praised by the right hon. Gentleman said on this matter:
Surely statesmanship requires that those who may take over power in future should

say 'When the time comes we will examine the working of the Bill with strict objectivity. We will retain those parts of it which have improved industrial relations, even if they have done so contrary to our expectations, but we will repeal or amend those which have done the opposite or have worked unjustly, and throughout the operation we shall bear in mind not merely the interests of one section of the community but the welfare of the country as a whole.'

Mr. Rose: What was the date?

The Prime Minister: It would be wise for the right hon. Gentleman to follow that advice instead of the sweeping proposal in his Motion.
I wish to deal with the practical question of the cooling-off period. The allegation has again been made today by the right hon. Gentleman that the dispute on the railways could have been settled if only 24 hours had been provided. Their is absolutely no justification for that allegation. It was quite clear after the meeting which was held by Mr. Feather with the members of the TUC concerned that there was no movement in the unions' position whatever. There was no negotiation. If there had been that possibility it was not in any way removed by the granting of the cooling-off period. Such proposals as Mr. Feather had to put forward, if they existed, could have been put perfectly well during the cooling-off period. But no settlement during that period was reached.
It might be that if mistakes were made during that period the arbitration of Mr. Jarratt should have been left for the cooling-off period. It is for those concerned with industrial relations to study this question. But the fact that Mr. Jarratt's arbitration was not kept back but was pushed ahead as fast as the employers and trade unions would accept shows that everything possible was done before the court was asked to grant a cooling-off period. The unions rejected the use of their own arbitration machinery. They accepted Mr. Jarratt as conciliator and arbitrator. He found it impossible, after a day's work, to conciliate and he decided to arbitrate. The unions then rejected his arbitration and only then did the Secretary of State ask for a cooling-off period.
But the gains to the community of the two cooling-off periods granted—first, for the purpose of conciliation, and, secondly, for the ballot—were immense.


[Hon. Members: "Oh."] This is undeniable. It may be a matter for hilarity to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that many millions of people found themselves unable to travel during the go-slow and the work-to-rule, and that the economy was disrupted during that period. But the fact is that the cooling-off periods prevented that from happening, as any impartial observer will agree. People were saved from hardship and inconvenience, and from damage to the earnings of fellow workers, which they had already experienced in one work-to-rule, and the economy was saved from considerable disruption.
Next, I wish to speak on the question of the ballot on the arbitration award of Mr. Jarratt. Some unions have procedures for balloting, and I have no doubt whatever that they would have used them on the Jarratt award. The railway unions refused to ballot. It is surely important that such an arbitration at such an important time, with such consequences for the people and the economy if it was rejected, should be put to the members of the unions before industrial disruption on a nationwide scale was caused. The nation, if it is to be subjected to industrial disruption of this kind, has the right to see that the will of the majority of union members is being carried through
The Leader of the Opposition criticised the Industrial Relations Court. Perhaps he will recognise that the appeal court upheld the Industrial Relations Court's judgment on the ballot and very clearly stated in detail the circumstances in which the Minister's decision could be challenged. This is why I make my accusation against the right hon. Gentleman about his ignorance of these affairs in the statement which he made on the Minister's powers. But it was after the ballot—and this is the final point that I wish to make on this matter, which has not been acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman—that, despite all the forecasts of inevitable and fatal confrontation, there was compromise. It was the first time that the unions had moved towards any compromise since they had put forward their claim for 14 per cent.

Mr. Reg Prentice: When the Solicitor-General went to the court and asked for the ballot, he had to satisfy the court, according to Section 141(1)(c) of the Act, that

there are reasons for doubting whether the workers who are taking part or are expected to take part in the strike or other industrial action are or would be taking part in it in accordance with their wishes…
What reasons did he have for those doubts?

The Prime Minister: It was the Secretary of State who went to the court for the ballot, and he has already explained his reasons to the House. It was right to ensure that members of the unions were properly informed of the offer which had been made in the Jarratt arbitration. The Industrial Relations Court was meticulous in ensuring that the offer made by the British Railways Board exactly equalled the Jarratt award. It were therefore right for the Secretary of State to ask for the ballot to be granted. The Industrial Relations Court granted it and the appeal court supported it.
I wish to emphasise again the point which is so unacceptable to hon. Members opposite, but which is undeniable, that it was after the ballot that the unions were, for the first time, prepared to move away from the demand to which they had adhered throughout the negotiations.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, prior to the final unfortunate deadlock, the railway unions had already cut down their claim? Their claim had been reduced considerably. Could not the question of balloting and the confrontation which took place have been avoided if the Government had not stood behind the Board and said that no extra money should be made available?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly not the case. The Board has made it absolutely clear that it went much further than it believed it justifiable to do. That is the absolute honourable and honest position of the Board, and it should be respected by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
I wish to deal with the question, which the Leader of the Opposition skirted, of the contempt by dockers at Chobham Farm. The important issue here is what happens when the law of the land is not complied with. This situation could equally have arisen before the Industrial Relations Act, and it is surely important that that should be recognised by those


considering the question of industrial relations.
Many examples could be cited. For example, in the Torquay case, if the injunction had not been complied with the consequences would have been exactly the same. But injunctions were observed and carried out by the unions in previous cases when injunctions had been made against them. [Interruption.] There is no difference between the sections of the High Court. This is another matter to which I wish to come. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite made no objection when the Restrictive Practices Court was set up to deal with the restrictive practices of employers and the question of resale price maintenance. That is a division of the High Court. Why should there be objection when a special division of the High Court is set up to deal with industrial relations with the deliberate purpose that justice should be speedier and more informal—proposals which have been put forward by many intelligent people in this country on the procedures of the High Court? There is no reason why there should be objection to the Industrial Relations Court.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Trade unionists have not always been very friendly towards the courts, but they have accepted their decisions. The difference about the Industrial Relations Court is, not only that it is a special court, but that there is no change of judges. Sir John Donaldson will make case law consistently, whereas in other parts of the High Court we are likely to find different judges and judgments made on cases as they arise. It is in this respect that trade unionists are not prepared to accept this puppet court, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, which has been specially set up by the Government.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is speaking rather more for himself than for the whole trade union movement. Obviously the situation is changing. But case law will be built up by the Industrial Relations Court, by the appeal court and no doubt by the House of Lords in hearing appeal cases, with other judges taking part. If that is the only point which is worrying the hon. Gentleman, it can be easily dealt with.
The same situation would have arisen from the proposals of the Labour Party

when fines had been imposed and had not been paid by those concerned. One might say that fines could be attached to earnings. But the question of the attachment of earnings requires assessment by a court. So finally we come back in every case, in the light of this one, to the action of the courts and what is done when the law is defied, and this is the question to which the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to address himself.
The other matter on which he dwelt was the question of the shop stewards' authority, and it was raised by another hon. Gentleman opposite, who is not today in his place, at Question time last Thursday. I agree with him at once that it is a vitally important question, but surely the more important this question is and the more important the rôle of the shop steward is then equally the more important it is to be clear precisely where authority and responsibility lie. The Act did not set out to answer this question for the unions. This is made quite clear in the court's judgment, and it is for the unions to decide this for themselves. Why should it be criticised for saying that it is one of the most important functions of the unions to settle it and to decide it?
The Government's position has been clearly endorsed by the Court of Appeal, that where a union does delegate authority to shop stewards, or encourages, endorses, supports or finances their actions, it must assume responsibility. In the long term clear identification of authority is essential for collective action, and to run away from the problem of authority and responsibility will in the longer term be disastrous. Union leaders recognise this clearly, and they know what a problem it posed for them. Registration can enable them to settle it themselves and to receive protection on it. Although the proposals of the party opposite when it was in Government required registration, the unions have done absolutely nothing to support this proposal, which is in the law of the land. Indeed, they have done exactly the reverse. There are signs that the trade unions' attitudes are changing, and I welcome that.
I want now to deal with the aspect of the Motion dealing with confrontation. The House knows that the history


of the Act has been one of non-co-operation by unions. Of course they are entitled to take that position. They had no consultation with us when we were in the Opposition; there was non-co-operation when we came into power. I am glad that there are signs that that attitude is now changing. The Opposition's censure Motion speaks of confrontation by the Government. The unions were offered consultation by us both when we were in Opposition and when we came to office, and I regret they refused it.

Mr. John Mendelson: Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone) rose——

The Prime Minister: I have been prepared to give way to many hon. Gentlemen a number of times. I ought to get on. This is not in dispute with the unions themselves. [Hon. Members: "It is."]
It was followed by one-day political strikes. The Bill's proposals were published and publicly discussed for four years before the election. They were given in detail in the manifesto. They had public support. There was every indication of that. They were put forward by the democratically elected Government and they were carried into law.
I know quite well that the Leader of the Opposition said that that was under the guillotine, but on that Bill there were no fewer than 56 days' and 481 hours' debate; 26 days and 235 hours were on the Floor of the House of Commons—a longer time than that spent on any Bill, other than Finance Bills, since the war. The House of Lords examined every Clause of it and made 343 Amendments to the Bill. Everybody in this House knows full well why the Bill was not completely covered here. It was, again, an example of the Opposition not being prepared to co-operate to improve legislation but having the sole intention of delaying and frustrating the Bill.
When I listened to the right hon. Gentleman I recalled these words of his on 2nd July, 1970, in the first debate here after he became Leader of the Opposition. It was the debate on the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech. He said:
I…tell the right hon. Gentleman this. He will not find this a fractious Opposition, but he will find it a well-informed one He can rely on the fact"—

this is particularly appropriate—
that we shall not be tempted to make difficulties for him in the sometimes turbulent area of overseas finance.
He might draw the attention of the shadow Chancellor to that. He went on:
…Her Majesty's Opposition will not be tempted to censure and negative opposition for opposition's sake….That is not good for Parliament. It is not good for democracy Opposition, no less than Government, must follow a theme consistent, comprehensive, based on priorities, and subject to a single unifying approach, bringing together every aspect of government—foreign affairs, defence, financial, economic, social, industrial policies. We shall wait for each new development of policy, wait watchfully and keenly, but we shall not rush into condemnation for the sake of it."—[Official Report, 2nd July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 56–7.]
If the right hon. Gentleman can look back with a sense of honesty and integrity to two years of Opposition and regard himself as having complied with that, then he is still living in the same world of illusion as he lived in when he was Prime Minister.

Mr. John Pardoe: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm a point he made? He said that his Government's proposals had been made even when they were in Opposition, and were published four years before the election. That was before the Donovan Report. Is he in fact saying that the Government took no account at all of the Donovan Report in framing their legislation? Is it not a tragedy of the Act that the Bill was introduced dogmatically by the party opposite on its views when in Opposition and without reference to the Donovan Report?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid the hon. Member has drawn an entirely false conclusion. I put these proposals in a speech I made at Southampton in March, 1966, and they were published and discussed with many people concerned. They were published in Fair Deal at Work and they were discussed with those particularly concerned when we came into office, but—alas—not the trade unions. They were published in the Consultative Document. That is the process which they all went through.
The proper processes were complied with, but non-co-operation continued—no assessors in the courts, no help to the tribunals, unions forbidden to register, and no appearance in the courts. There


cannot be a greater confrontation in a democracy than that—no decision by the Government but the free decision of the trade unions not to co-operate in any way under an Act of Parliament proposed by a democratically elected Government and carried through by both Houses of Parliament. In fact the accusation by the right hon. Gentleman, freely made inside this House and outside, that the Government asked for confrontation, is entirely spurious.
Those who urged this policy of non-co-operation and got it carried through bear a heavy responsibility for the position of those individuals who now find themselves in conflict with the law. They cannot be surprised at the situation, therefore, which arose at Chobham Farm. It was a deplorable situation which, had there been democratic compliance with the law, need never have arisen, and certainly not in the form it did. It was a dispute between transport workers—63 of them—who objected to being forced out of their jobs by other workers in the same union. I wish to put a direct question to the right hon. Gentleman or to whomsoever is to wind up the debate for the Opposition. Do they, as the Opposition, as the Labour Party, approve of that situation? If they do not, how do their propose to resolve it?
The union itself had already failed to resolve it. It has been resolved as a result of the working of the Industrial Relations Act, the Jones Aldington Committee having been set up. [Interruption.] I know that this is a problem which had been lurking there a long time, but what action had been achieved by the unions to resolve it? None at all. Absolutely none. What did the Opposition do to resolve it? Absolutely nothing. If both sides to the dispute had gone to the court the court itself could have introduced a solution to resolve it. This is where the whole policy of non-co-operation has led. I welcome the setting up of the Jones Aldington Committee just as much as the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that it will now find a long-term solution for the problems wider than the one which has been spotlighted to the public recently.
What the right hon. Gentleman entirely failed to mention is the extent to which the Act is operating in other ways. I

have already mentioned the Jones Aldington Committee, but also claims for non-recognition are being considered on their merits by the Commission on Industrial Relations, and objective examination takes the place of industrial action. Individual employees in increasing numbers are taking advantage of the new opportunities to complain to industrial tribunals about unfair dismissal or infringement of their rights as trade unionists. Will the Act be repealed by the party opposite if it ever comes to power again?
Is it not satisfactory that in the first 13 weeks in which these provisions were in operation, 1,757 complaints of unfair dismissal and 148 complaints of infringement of trade union rights were received by the conciliation officers either from the tribunals or by direct application? During this period the conciliation officers dealt with 1,270 of these complaints. Is that an accusation of confrontation against the court, or is it better use of the conciliation procedures? In nearly half the cases tribunal hearings were averted; 221 voluntary settlements were achieved and 407 complaints were withdrawn. I hope right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to treat a serious matter seriously will now acknowledge the work of the court, the conciliators and the Act.
There is a demand for better conciliation procedures independent of Government. In the 1950s, as Minister of Labour, I recall that conciliation was condemned by the employers on the grounds that it inevitably led to a settlement which was beyond their capacity. In the 1960s, conciliation was condemned by the unions on the grounds that it never met their demands because the Government interfered, whether a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. In 1950, as Minister of Labour, I considered the separation of the conciliation machinery from the then Ministry of Labour. But the problems are considerable, as the TUC and the CBI are now realising—not least the size of the organisation and the sheer financial cost of running it.
Nevertheless, I welcome this initiative, which arose out of talks I had with the TUC and the CBI. They believe that this should be applied at national level and the Government will discuss this with them at the appropriate time. Arbitration is a


different problem which could be similarly examined. But the consumer interest in arbitration must be safeguarded, and the public has the right to know the basis on which this is being done. The use of conciliation procedures in the present or in developed forms, whether voluntary or at the request of the court, will of course render unnecessary the use of the further powers which the Industrial Relations Court possesses. This we have always made absolutely plain, and I shall say this again to the TUC tomorrow.
There are nine major spheres for the use of conciliation procedures by the court laid down in the Industrial Relations Act. Surely the emphasis should be put on attempting first of all to use conciliation procedures in those nine major spheres. Only then, if all those fail or the appropriate one fails, will it be necessary to use the further power the court has under the Act.
I sum up this aspect of the matter in this way. The Amendment cites a framework of law, and I believe that there must be one. For the past century there has been one in existence. The trade unions in their time demanded it, and it has been almost untouched for 60 years. If the Motion means that the Act must be repealed and the framework of law must revert to what it was, I and the Government certainly cannot accept that. It is also against the Opposition's own attitude in Government and their own proposals which were put forward and against the Bill as modified afterwards. If the trade unions say that the Act must be swept away, that means that they must be left as they were, Parliament cannot change the framework of the law and they alone of our great institutions must be ignored in the process of change, and neither I nor the Government can accept that.
More restraints and responsibilities are being placed on employers and on companies, for example, by the requirements of the environment, and rightly so in the national interest. As the trade unions claim a position of such importance in the State, and as their impact on the nation and its economic life is so great, it is right that they too should operate in a framework of law which is modern and appropriate to our times. Perhaps we should have set this out more fully

in the Amendment, and spoken of a framework of law "which would help to contain the destructive expression of industrial conflict and to encourage a more equitable, ordered and efficient system". Those words will be acceptable to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they are taken from "In Place of Strife".
I cannot accept that the Act should be repealed, neither can the Government, nor I believe can Parliament. Public support for it is still maintained. I say to the trade unions, let them now work this Act and co-operate in its implementation.—[Hon. Members: "Why?"]—Because it is an Act of law passed by a democratically-elected Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues ever again return to power they will expect their legislation to be observed by the whole of the community in the same way. Let the unions co-operate in this law. Let them help in its operation. Let them acknowledge the advantages which it has for them which can be clearly proved, some of which I have already demonstrated to the House. After a proper period of operation, let the unions discuss where they believe it is genuinely damaging either to their own interests or to the nation. That is the way in which democracy in a developed country operates. The Government will be fully prepared in such a process to discuss these points with them.
Hon. Gentlemen say that we have not been prepared to do so in the past. This I dispute but, whatever our difference of opinion about that, I know full well that opinion in the trade unions is changing towards the Act—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—there is no point in hon. Gentlemen continuing to deceive themselves. Let the unions play their part as one of the most important groups of organisations in the country. Let them operate the Act fully, and discuss with us from experience after an appropriate period where they believe it is genuinely damaging to them and to the interests of the country.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, will he say whether he is any relation to the Leader of the Opposition who made a direct appeal almost in terms of instruction to the TUC in 1966


asking them not to co-operate with the Government's policy on prices and incomes?

The Prime Minister: At no time have I ever suggested to the trade unions that they should not comply with the law—never at any time. I am perfectly entitled to express my view to the TUC. The right hon. Gentleman may think that he has a monopoly of addressing the TUC; that is no fault of mine. I have never at any time suggested that the unions should do other than comply with the law of the land as it stood.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that I said that?

The Prime Minister: I have never accused the right hon. Gentleman of saying that. What I said was that I have never urged the TUC not to comply with the law, and that is the position.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: Nor have we.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will go further and urge the unions now to co-operate with this Act of Parliament. I have never told the unions not to co-operate in the law on prices and incomes or on anything else. The Opposition accusation, therefore, has not been substantiated, and I must reject it.
I wish to deal with one other matter affecting conciliation. There are innumerable types of problem with which conciliation has to deal in the relations of trade unions with each other and with the outside world. Most can be satisfactorily dealt with given proper procedures and machinery and a modicum of good will.

Mr. Orme: Voluntarily.

The Prime Minister: I am coming to that in a moment. The major problem is wage negotiations. It is here that the alleged confrontation takes place. The impact on the economy, on the balance of payments and on the world's judgment of this country is immense. The unions have constantly emphasised, as the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has just emphasised, that the major principle in which they believe is free col-

lective bargaining. I have always been fully prepared to acknowledge that. The unions have bitterly opposed Government interference—whatever the colour of the Government. When they criticise intervention on conciliation matters, it is not limited to this Government. It goes back much further in time, and involves Governments of both parties, and Governments under many Prime Ministers.
Furthermore, they bitterly oppose control of wage increases; they oppose legislation to freeze wages or to govern them by Statute. The trade unions recognise the right of a Government to pursue their own economic policy. The right of the Government to do this in a democracy is essential, but at the same time the trade unions maintain their own right to free collective bargaining. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] If that is the attitude to be maintained, then I suggest that the unions cannot escape their share of responsibility for the impact of free collective bargaining on the economy and on their own members, either in terms of prices or unemployment. Surely if we are agreed on this matter on both sides, that is a major advance.
The unions, which claim the right to be fully consulted on so many aspects of national life, must also accept the implications. There are many trade union leaders and trade unionists who wish to do so, and of this I am quite convinced. The alternatives which otherwise face this country today are stark: they are legal intervention, which the trade unions reject; or confrontation, to which all of us object; or lastly inflation. Those are the stark alternatives—and it might be that confrontation and inflation go together.
I suggest that this is the real position with which we in this House have to deal, and the responsibility is to be borne equally by Government, unions and employers. I do not wish to go at length into the detail of these matters, but I wish to emphasise that the employers have carried out their undertaking to limit their prices to 5 per cent., and they have policed them. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] This is not disputed by the trade union leaders whom I meet on the occasions when they come to No. 10 Downing Street—so many more occasions than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the


Opposition is generous enough to acknowledge.
The trade union leaders acknowledge the extent to which Government policy fits in with what they have been asking for, and in particular the policy of moving towards growth. This is a policy for which they have asked, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has carried out that policy with all the risks inherent in it, some of which we saw a fortnight ago. We have instituted annual review of pensions, again something for which the trade unions asked. Furthermore, in regional policy it is the trade unions which are complimenting the Goverenment on the policy they are following. [Hon. Members: "No."] This is absolutely true. We are being criticised in some industrial spheres for those policies, but the TUC has supported them.
The trade unions have seen the standard of living of their members increase faster in the last two years than it did under the preceding two years of Labour Government. They acknowledge these things. It is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends who are in dispute with the trade unions over these matters.
I want to deal with one specific point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the help given to nationalised industries, some of whose workers he suggested were among the lower paid. In our meetings with the TUC we have always said that we would fully support them if they wished to work out priorities so that the lower-paid workers get additional benefit and so that the differentials are not carried right through to make the burden on employers untenable. But this is not agreed policy in the TUC. If it is prepared to agree on that matter, we will do everything possible to help to improve the conditions of the lower-paid worker throughout industry.
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that the total cost of supporting the nationalised industries in 1971–72 was £225 million. This money came from the taxpayer, and it excludes the write-off of the capital debt in respect of the British Steel Corporation amounting to £350 million. Nobody can say that the present Government in using money provided by the taxpayer have not

employed vast sums to try to keep down prices, and at the same time to help the wages of those working in nationalised industries. I hope that when right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have had to face these problems in their time, come to make their assessment, they will be fair enough to recognise what has been done in those spheres in which the trade unions have asked for help.
We all know that these matters will be discussed tomorrow. The Labour Party has nothing to contribute to that discussion when it takes place, and the Leader of the Opposition has clearly demonstrated this.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of threshold agreements. I would remind him that before this matter was put to Neddy and was examined by the four representatives concerned, the TUC itself did not agree on the proposal for threshold agreements. Therefore, there has been no united recognition on this point, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on this matter.
Let there be no accusation that the present Government have dragged their feet over threshold agreements. Many economists know that there are dangers in such agreements from an inflationary point of view. Some trade union leaders believe that there are dangers from the point of view of achieving their purposes. There is every reason that the subject should be thoroughly examined, but I must point out that it is not the Government who have been dragging their feet.
There is great urgency about the meeting with the TUC tomorrow, and that which I hope to have with the CBI shortly. It is right for the trade union leaders to look after their members' interests. But it is also right for us as a democratically-elected Government to ask them to take into account the long-term interests of their members as well as what may appear to be the short-term gains. I believe the great majority of trade union leaders also believe that there is something even greater than that to be considered. They know in their heart of hearts that there is a national interest at stake. They also know that it is only the Government of the day, through Parliament, which can take account of that national interest.
Therefore, I believe that if we, together with both employers and unions, can build on the recognition of the interests of this country as a whole, we still have an opportunity to protect the principle which they hold dear and which I respect, namely, free voluntary negotiation, and at the same time to maintain the economy of this country.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am not normally a man who writes references for himself or who pins medals on his own chest, and in the ordinary way I would not dream of beginning my speech by stating my credentials for intervening in the debate. I am induced to do so only by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister began his oration by demanding the ear of the House on the subject of industrial relations, on the grounds that he had very close practical connections with the working of industry based on a year or two which he spent in an industrial estate—a hive of activity, purring with machinery—No. 8 St. James's Square. There he was wearing his dungarees, bespattered with oil and covered in swarf and carrying his 20-year trade union membership card in his pocket. The great trouble is—and the right hon. Gentleman is not alone in this attitude—that he believes that a small spell in Government tells him exactly what is going on on the shop floor. He then proceeded to show in his speech that he has not a clue about what happens in practical terms on the shop floor.
The Industrial Relations Act and the institutions set up under it have proved to be, as we all know only too well and only too sadly, a remedy which is more painful than the disease it is supposed to cure. Even that is not the worst of it. The worst of it is that the disease was wrongly diagnosed in the first place. The Government's justification for throwing the tender plant of industrial relations into the crushing maw or the legal system is that prices are being forced up, and hence goods becoming uncompetitive in export markets, because, and only because, wage claims are putting up our unit labour costs, and therefore our prices, faster and higher than those of our competitors.
What are the facts? Let us compare ourselves with a country with which we are a very fair comparison in industry and exports—the Federal Republic of Germany. In the two years from the first quarter of 1970 to the first quarter of 1972, unit wage costs in Germany rose by 18 per cent. and export prices rose by 5 per cent. That is about what one would expect, because wages are between one-third and one-quarter of the final make-up price of articles. In the same two years, unit labour costs rose by 17 per cent. in the United Kingdom and export prices by 17 per cent. On the parallel of Germany, out of that 17 per cent. increase in export prices only 5 per cent. is due to higher unit labour costs. Where has the other 12 per cent. come from?

Mr. David Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman also state the figures of productivity in relation to the same scale as he has given on wages and costs?

Mr. Mikardo: I am always glad to give way to an hon. Gentleman who knows something about the subject. Productivity is reflected in unit labour costs, by which I mean costs per machine tool, costs per ballbearing, costs per pair of shoes, which equal wage rates diminished by productivity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has got that. It is very elementary stuff.
All that the Government have done is make an absolute fetish out of the cause of the 5 per cent. increase in export prices and to do and say nothing about the causes of the 12 per cent. increase. What are the causes of the 12 per cent. increase? Those of us who work in industry—unlike the Prime Minister—can hazard our own guesses. Some of it is due to a lack of increase in output so that higher on-costs are not spread over higher production. Some of it is due simply to very bad management. Some of it is due to profiteering. There may be other causes. The Government never look at any of them. They say nothing about any other possible causes. They simply cause chaos by their obsession with the lesser part of the cost of the increase in prices.
I ask the Secretary of State for Employment to answer this simple question.


Why do the Germans, with an 18 per cent. increase in unit labour costs in two years, remain competitive in world markets when we, with a 17 per cent. increase in unit labour costs in two years, are said to be so uncompetitive that we have to turn all industry into a turmoil as a result of it?
I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is noting my questions. Whilst he is at it, will he answer another one. Two items which have gone up faster than anything else in the last two years are land and houses. Which workers are they whose wage increases are responsible for the rise in the price of land? Is it surveyors' clerks or who? Which group of workers are responsible in their wage increases for house prices rising by one-third in one year? Is it bricklayers or plasterers or who? Or is it gazumpers and profiteers? If it is gazumpers and profiteers, what action does the Secretary of State intend to take to put them into the legislative process the way he is putting industrial relations into the legislative process?
I turn now to the question of the workings of the Act itself. I will not add anything to what has been said over and over again by people better qualified than me about the CIR and the Industrial Relations Court. I shall draw attention to one fact which is not widely appreciated. Much of the actual and potential damage which is done by the court to industrial relations is due to the work of the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations and to the fact that he is not doing his job properly.
In common with all other hon. Members, although I would always enjoy having a bash at a Minister, I do not like criticising an official. However, in this case the Act leaves me no alternative. The Chief Registrar is appointed under Section 63 of the Act, which specifies in terms that he is not an appointee of any Minister nor responsible to any Minister; he is appointed by Her Majesty at Her Majesty's pleasure.
It is obvious that the Government did it this way purposely and precisely to relieve the Minister from any accountability for the actions of the Registrar. That is why I cannot call the Minister to account. That is why some of my hon. Friends and I have put on today's Order

Paper a Prayer to Her Majesty to sack the Chief Registrar. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will prevail on the Leader of the House to see that we get some time to debate that Prayer.
It may be of interest to the House to know that the last time a Prayer to Her Majesty was tabled in this form was in May, 1830. It was then tabled in respect of a Sir Jonas Barrington, a judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, who duly got it where the chicken got the chopper. I hope that the same will apply in this case.
I claim that the Registrar has failed even by the objectives of the Act, and that is something which must interest the Secretary of State. The Act and the Registrar were intended, as we have heard over and over again—we heard it today from the Prime Minister—to put some order into industrial relations. The Registrar has proved an irritant to industrial relations by putting organisations on the Register which are now disrupting existing, and sometimes long-standing, patterns of free bargaining arrangements.
The Prime Minister made a great song and dance about how much he was in favour of free bargaining.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot support something which puts a spanner in the wheel of free bargaining arrangements which have gone on successfully for decades. I repeat, the Registrar has disrupted the work of long-standing free bargaining arrangements by putting on the Register organisations which would not be in a position to disrupt but for the fact that the Registrar has legitimised them. By applying for fragmenting miniscule agency shops under Section 45(1) of the Act, these organisations are disrupting arrangements, interestingly enough often not only against the wishes of trade unions, but also of employers, and notably the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation. They are costing the Government, through the CIR and the Industrial Court, and the trade unions, who have to defend themselves before the court, a great deal of money. In these cases the Act, because of the defective work of the Registrar, is proving arrantly counter-productive.
The second point is that the Registrar is failing to carry out his statutory duties in a proper manner. Under Section 67(1)


the Registrar is supposed to satisfy himself of two things before registering an applicant organisation: first, that it
is an independent organisation of workers
and, secondly, that it
has power, without the concurrence of any parent organisation, to alter its own rules and to control the application of its own property and funds".
What is meant by
an independent organisation of workers"?
That is defined in Section 167—unlike the Prime Minister, I have read the Act—as meaning
not under the domination or control of an employer or of a group of employers".
Therefore, I maintain that in some instances the Registrar has not complied with the requirements of Section 67(1).
Section 61(1) defines an "organisation of workers" as consisting
wholly or mainly of workers of one or more descriptions and is an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description…and employers".
That is clear enough.
The Code of Industrial Relations Practice which reinforces this stipulates certain standards which trade unions should meet. It includes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, according to paragraph 13, first, that they should
employ enough full-time officials to maintain adequate contact with management and with their members in every establishment where the union is recognised and with any employers' associations",
and secondly,
maintain effective communication, including exchange of information and views, between different levels of the union.
Paragraph 14 states:
Members of a trade union should be prepared to provide their union with the authority and resources needed to carry out its functions.
All those requirements refer to resources and their allocation. The Code exists as a guide to industrial relations and is admissible in evidence before the Court and tribunals. But the Registrar does not yet seem to have had a copy because he is not working in accordance with it.
There is no compulsion on the Registrar to take notice of these guides, but a ha'porth of common sense dictates that

he shall. Otherwise, what was the purpose of the Code?
There is no provision in the Act for an appeal to the Registrar or the Industrial Relations Court citing the Code as evidence. What then was the purpose of these paragraphs in the Code?
Organisations which applied to be placed on the provisional register, which is now closed, were not required to submit either accounts or rule books—that is laid down in Section 78(3)(b)—and the Registrar is not empowered under Section 79(1) to call for accounts or rule books. So on what evidence was he supposed to satisfy himself that organisations which applied conformed with the criteria laid down in the Act? It means that organisations could be and have been placed on the permanent register without the Registrar being able to fulfil the basic requirements laid down in the Act. Documents about organisations of this kind are not available to the public because they have not reached the Registrar and he has admitted, openly and honestly, that he cannot find out about them because he has not the manpower, resources and facilities to carry out any research. Therefore, he has to take any organisations which apply on their own say-so.
The result is what we would expect. All kinds of strange outfits calling themselves trade unions, but not fulfilling any of the criteria laid down by the Act, have got themselves on the Register. There are dozens of them. Few people realise how many there really are.
I should like to quote examples. There is one called the Association of Officers of Executive Councils and Pricing Committees of the National Health Service. That is a lovely, big, grandiloquent title. It is a lovely, big powerful organisation! We do not know where it lives because it does not pay any rent. I do not know where it can be. I have not discovered anywhere in this country where one can live without paying rent. If one wants to send a letter to the Association of Officers of Executive Councils and Pricing Committees of the National Health Service it has to be addressed care of one of the employers of its members—the Leicester and Rutland Executive Council. By what Alice-in-Wonderland stretch of the imagination can this be


called an independent association of workers? But it is on the permanent Register.
A second example is the Association of Cambridge University Assistants. That really is an extraordinary body, and it is even more extraordinary that the Registrar has put it on the Register. The workers concerned obviously share my view, because recently they had the chance of balloting between this strange association and a genuine trade union—my own—and they voted by a significant majority in favour of the trade union.
I have looked up that Association's most recent accounts for 1971. Out of a total expenditure of £1,143 in 1971, the amount spent on industrial relations was £25. That represents the expenses of its Wages and Conditions of Service Committee. Of course, that is a good deal better than the previous year, 1970, when it spent only £6 on industrial relations out of a total expenditure of just under £900. So in 1971, out of all its income, that organisation spent 2·2 per cent. on industrial relations work.
Four of other items in its expenditure budget had more spent on them than industrial relations, and I will tell the Minister what they are. One is angling, one is boating, one is swimming and the fourth one is tennis. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Registrar was right in putting on to the Register as a bona fide trade union an organisation which spent 2·2 per cent. of its income on industrial relations and very much more on angling, boating, swimming and tennis? Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to say that this organisation exists to defend the wages and working conditions of its members—or at least their working conditions and wages on land, because they seem to spend a lot of their time on the water? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that organisation ought to have been registered?
Another is called the Association of Supervisory and Executive Engineers which, far from being a trade union, is a satellite of a company called the Electrical Engineering Exhibition Company Ltd. The association and the company share the same address, and they share the same secretary. The company runs exhibitions and takes money from contractors and employers to run them, so that the Asso-

ciation, which is a satellite of the company, depends for its very existence upon money supplied by companies which are the employers of its members, yet the Registrar adjudges it to be an independent trade union. Is that a view which the right hon. Gentleman shares, or is he not allowed to answer my questions because the Registrar is responsible only to Her Majesty?
What about the General Dental Practitioners' Association, which is a small splinter group of dentists who became disillusioned with the British Dental Association and broke away from it? The association is nearly insolvent. I think that its assets are about £3. It has no negotiating rights, and it has no expectation whatever of ever getting any. It cannot possibly fulfil paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Code of Practice. Why is it on the Register?
What about the National Federation of Traffic Wardens? It has 819 members, is completely in the "red", and has not supplied any accounts to the Registrar later than those for 1969—and those accounts show its assets as minus £483. This organisation could not possibly fulfil paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Code. Nor could it reasonably represent its members without a drastic increase in funds and subscriptions, and yet it is on the Registrar.
I could go on for a long time amusing the House with these esoteric and laughable organisations which the Registrar has put on the Register, but it would be unfair to other hon. Members if I were to do that. I hope, however, that I may be allowed to refer to one more organisation, the London Jewel Case and Jewel Display Makers' Union, which has managed to unite within itself a mass membership of 23 members. It pays £6 a year in rent, and £76 a year in salaries. I wonder how much powerful, strong, militant representation and skilful negotiation its members get in return for a salary bill of £76 per annum? It really is ludicrous to put such an organisation on the Register.
The Registrar has not carried out his statutory obligations and has not used a ha'porth of common sense in doing his work, and by failing to carry out his obligations and by failing to treat his work in anything like as serious a way


as he should he has injected into industrial relations a good deal of friction and discontent instead of doing the job which we are told the Act was supposed to do—smoothing the path of industrial relations. That is why I hope that time will be found to debate the Prayer standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, to see whether the Registrar really is fit to hold his present position.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: With no personal knowledge of the odd spots described by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) I shall not attempt to fish in his waters or to play in his tennis court. Indeed, I feel that to follow in detail the points made by the hon. Gentleman would be to take up far too much time of the House when so many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I regard the debate as one of a more general nature, rather than one in which one can indulge in specific nit-picking criticisms of different parts of the Act.
It is perhaps understandable that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite who in 1969 supported the view that their survival as a Government depended upon their ability to introduce a legal framework for industrial relations and then went on to prove the truth of what they were saying—I am speaking only of those who supported that view in 1969—by failing in their intention and being thrown out of Government should now be in some paddy of frustration as they see their political opponents succeed where they failed, particularly so when industrial relations is a subject which they have always regarded as peculiarly their own.
As I understand it, the sound and fury of the attack from the Opposition on the Industrial Relations Act all add up to the allegation that the Act is not working in the way in which it was designed to work, and the hon. Member for Poplar made that one of his points. To put in more moderate terms than right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have done so far, the allegation is that the Act has failed and is failing in its main purpose.
That might be true if the Act had ever been intended to abolish all industrial disputes and to settle all wage claims—in short, to obviate the need for collective

bargaining in our industrial society. But the law was never intended to be a magic wand—nor was it ever claimed from this side of the House that it would be.
Indeed, through all the years when the policy was being explained to the general public—before the General Election, during it and since then—it was repeatedly asserted that the main objective and hope of the policy was that it would exert an influence on the attitudes of those involved in industrial relations. The arguments which we repeatedly advanced in favour of the legislation were that it would, in the long term, bring a measure of order out of what had become a chaotic situation by exposing to the public gaze those who elect to behave irresponsibly and by giving those who act responsibly the support of the law in the last resort. But the law was always intended to be used only as a measure of last resort when all other measures and attempts to seek, a solution to the problem had failed.
In 1968, in "Fair Deal at Work" we said in Chapter 1:
A fair, relevant and sensible framework of the law, while providing no panaceas, can exert stabilising pressures and help to raise general standards in the way men do business together.
We said it as long ago as that. We added:
We agree that success or failure in this field depends principally on human behaviour, not the law.
So the real measure of success or failure is not victories won or lost in the courts but how far the approach to industrial relations by those engaged in it is changing for the better. I believe that to be a fair criterion against which to judge the Act's success.
The outstanding proof of the Act's short-term success in these early days of its operation lies in the 1,757 applications to the industrial tribunals by or on behalf of individual employees alleging unfair dismissals, of which more than 500 have been settled by the intervention of Department of Employment conciliation officers before even getting to the tribunals. Since alleged unjust dismissal has in the past been a frequent cause of wildcat strikes and instant stoppages, and since none has occurred in any of those 1,757 cases, I call that a big plus for the Act so far. That is only in the very short term: the Act was never


expected to have much return in the short term, for it is a long-term Measure.
Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment used his last-resort powers in the railway dispute only after the Board's offer had reached an inflationary level, his intervention clearly kept to a minimum industrial action, and therefore dislocation of the public service, and it encouraged the parties to the dispute to reach their own final settlement.
We have always said that in the case of a secret ballot being ordered by the court the results would be made public, and it would then be left to the parties to the dispute to find the solution, in the light of the result of the ballot. That has always been the intention, and Labour hon. Members should not have been surprised that that was what happened in the dispute.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that the ballot would have been ordered if the Government had correctly guessed what the result would be?

Mr. Holland: I honestly think it was right and proper for the ballot to be called——

Mr. Mikardo: Answer the question.

Mr. Holland: I am answering it in my own way. The hon. Gentleman cannot dictate to me how I answer questions; he can only ask them. I firmly believe that the ballot had to be called, and that it was right that it should be called, so that the general public knew exactly what the score was. That was what the ballot revealed.
What is annoying Labour Members and their party political friends in the TUC and the trade unions is their realisation that they are powerless to arrest the growing acceptance by increasing numbers of trade unionists that the Act has a good deal to offer them as individuals, and a good deal more to offer them if they are members of a registered trade union. That view is growing. Frank Chapple has made no secret of the fact that he finds advantages in registration for trade unions. He made no secret of that during the election campaign for the highest office in the ETU. He was elected, so his members thought he talked sense.
Last week I attended a trade union meeting. I am sure that Labour Members will denigrate the trade unionists I met, but I see no reason why they should deny any trade unionist the right to his own opinions, whether political or industrial. I asked the trade unionists present what in their view was the way in which the Act was working most satisfactorily. A member of an industrial union replied "The Act is turning over a big flat stone and opening up to the light of day practices of which the public were formerly only vaguely aware". That is perhaps a more descriptive way of saying that it is exposing to the public gaze those who elect to behave irresponsibly.
Last Thursday it was disclosed that the new industrial peace plan being devised by the CBI and TUC jointly will be ready in draft form within a fortnight. No one believes that that would have ever have got off the ground if there had been no Industrial Relations Act.
Mr. Feather says that the Act must go, but the party political posturings of members of the TUC and the trade unions should be recognised for what they are—party political propaganda. The public, and particularly the mass media, must understand that in these matters the trade union leaders speak only on behalf of those members who are Socialists. They all have in their trade unions members who hold a different point of view. We have been told time and again, for example that the big industrial unions will have nothing to do with legal enforceability, and that their members will not sign any collective agreements unless they have a non-enforceable clause.
Early in June, just six months after the coming into operation of that part of the Act, I took the trouble to make inquiries of two or three large companies. I discovered that of a total of 27 plant level procedural or term agreements concluded since 1st December, 1971, only three incorporated clauses saying that the agreements would be non-enforceable. I am not claiming to make from those figures any forecasts that that is happening throughout the country. All I am saying is that there are many people who do not agree entirely with what the trade union leaders say about these things, and they act differently. In case


Labour Members doubt that, I must add that I checked with the companies as to the sort of unions involved and the sort of agreements reached. I specifically asked in one case whether any of the agreements that were legally enforceable were procedural, and I was told that the company had a procedural agreement with shop stewards of the AEU that was legally enforceable and signed in that knowledge by the shop stewards.
In attacking the legislation and urging non-co-operation, the TUC leaders, who are speaking as party politicians, are not speaking in the best interests of the trade union movement, and increasingly the trade union membership is beginning to realise that.

Mr. Mikardo: Then why is Ted meeting them?

Mr. Holland: The Labour Party is adept at hurling boomerangs. It did so in 1952, about the alleged impossibility of building 300,000 houses in a single year. It did so in 1959, and in subsequent General Election campaigns, about the impossibility of increasing social security benefits while reducing the general level of taxation. It is doing so tonight in prematurely attacking the Government's industrial relations policy and legislation. I am glad that the Opposition have chosen to launch this attack tonight. For what they say in this debate will make them look pretty silly when we come to the next General Election.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The debate has been widely hailed in the newspapers as likely to be rough. It has been suggested that some sort of gladiatorial contest would take place between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. That is symptomatic of what is wrong with industrial relations and the debates on the subject in the House. They have become the politics of confrontation, of polarised confrontation, with far more heat than light generated. That aspect was perhaps particularly true of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, which contained not a single constructive suggestion. I never knew until today that the right hon. Gentleman had such a high opinion of Lord Donovan and his Report. If he had, why on earth

did he not, when Prime Minister, introduce a Bill based entirely on Donovan?
The truth is that the whole climate in this country has been greatly changed in the past few years, so that it is very difficult to get to grips with the subject of industrial relations and have a debate on it without people prematurely adopting partisan attitudes.
The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) suggested that the claims made on behalf of the Act were very modest, long-term and so on. That is untrue. For a couple of years before the last election people were claiming that such a Measure would be a panacea to cure our industrial ills. Excessive Tory enthusiasm for the worst aspects of the Measure fuelled the fears of trade unionists about what its results might be. The result has been the impossible situation which has arisen in which the Act, which has many considerable merits, has become the knockabout thing of party politics.

Mr. Holland: The hon. and learned Gentleman has quite properly said that people had been going round saying that such legislation would be a panacea. People may have been doing so, but not Conservative Members of Parliament or parliamentary candidates.

Mr. Hooson: I can only think that the hon. Gentleman did not listen or read at all during that period or he would have known that excessive claims were made by Tory politicians; and that has been one of the features of successive debates about the Measure.
An Act such as this has always been linked with the question of an income and prices policy. The Leader of the Opposition today referred to that link-up, saying that the Act introduced an incomes policy in disguise. In 1969, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) put part of his Budget Statement under the heading:
Incomes policy and industrial relations.
He put the two together, and said:
The achievement of the objectives we have set ourselves and the avoidance of further difficulties, must depend upon restraint in the growth of incomes.
He also said:
Moreover, no observer of the British economy can doubt that the present climate of industrial relations is a serious obstacle to the


attainment of our economic objectives, and that the improvement of that climate should be a major aim of policy.
He concluded that part of his Budget Statement by saying:
In particular we need to facilitate the smooth working of the process of collective bargaining in industry and to help to prevent the occurrence of unnecessary and damaging disputes, of which we have seen all too much recently, and which are totally incompatible with our economic objectives. The Government have, therefore, decided to implement without delay, during the present Session, some of the more important provisions incorporated in the White Paper 'In Place of Strife'. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will be intervening later in this debate to explain the provisions which the new legislation will embody."—[Official Report, 15th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1003–6.]
I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman to demonstrate that the view of the Labour Government was that an incomes policy was directly related to the industrial relations sphere.
There seems to be a wide acceptance in many parts of the House that inevitably the relationship of employer and employed is one of conflict; that under a capitalist system there cannot possibly be anything other than a state of conflict between the two. I do not accept this. Further, I do not believe that there is any virtue in continuing in this House to accept the view that one must either indulge in union bashing or in justifying virtually all existing trade union practices. There is a sphere here where all can appreciate that it is in the interests of employers and employed to come together.
I have great sympathy for the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). He referred to the increase in unit costs related to wages and to the increase in export prices and compared them with similar margins in Germany. He was quite right. In Thursday's debate I pointed out the enormous increase—more than 200 points—in the Financial Times index of shares between 1970 and 1972 and the enormous increase in the price of land. I said that it is quite impossible to get the kind of climate in which an industrial relations policy or an effective prices and incomes policy can work effectively while one selects only one element, namely, wages, for attack.
There are those who would make only the rise in wages a matter for control

and restraint. If there were a general policy applying to all aspects of inflation that was accepted as being fair all round, there would be some hope of acceptance of such a policy. Many hon. Members would like to see the capitalist system replaced by a Socialist system. I am not one of them, but I should like to see a greatly modified and changed capitalist system. The central point must be grasped that today we shall not get co-operation from those who depend entirely on their wages whilst other sources of wealth remain uncontrolled, untouched and unchanged.
The Liberals do not accept that the relationship of employer and employed must be one of conflict. We believe in the possibility of partnership in industry; in our ability as a society to modify the capitalist system and to create conditions to make the kind of partnership we have in mind a practical reality. On the industrial relations front, three basic objectives must be achieved.
First, we should have a new basic standard contract for all workers stating clearly the basic employment rights of the individual. It is astonishing to find how many workers today are ignorant, despite the sophistication of our trade union system, of their basic rights as individuals in relation to their employers and in relation to their unions.
Secondly, we should introduce statutory works councils representing all employees and management in all firms over a certain size. This would at least recognise that the most crucial sphere of industrial relations today is the shop floor and the individual plant. As it is, we still persist with the old centralised system—the national bargaining, with no kind of allowance for the increased importance of the shop floor and the plant. Councils of this kind could deal at plant level with wage bargaining and day-to-day administrative problems.
Great complaint has been made in the House, and rightly, that under this Government and under the previous Government we have had so many unofficial strikes, but as I have tried to explain on many occasions, and so have others with greater knowledge of the subject, unofficial strikes do not occur simply because of a whim, or a desire to inflict some kind of damage on society. They


generally have a basis of genuine complaint, and the truth is that our procedures are not such as to enable those complaints to be dealt with expeditiously and fairly.
We know that many firms have good labour relations, and have appointed specially trained officers to deal with shop stewards on a man to man basis, but we all know, too, that there are other firms which are badly managed and have very bad industrial relations, and where the abrasive influence of a small incident can lead in time to an unofficial strike to put the matter right. The compulsory introduction of works councils of the type I have suggested is long overdue.
Thirdly, I should like to see company law so changed as to give the employees of public limited liability companies the same rights as the shareholders in electing directors to the board. The hon. Member for Poplar, who has very great knowledge of the subject, referred to the situation in Germany, but he did not go further and point out that, as I am told, that highly successful industrial country, which started from much the same basis as we did, which is our greatest competitor in Europe, and which has been doing so much better than we have, has developed an industrial relations system resulting from advice given to the trade union side there by British trade unionists after the war.

Mr. Mikardo: Ernie Bevin.

Mr. Hooson: I am given the name of Ernie Bevin, but I believe that it was the TUC generally that gave advice to the German trade union side. I wish that they had given the same advice to themselves and that it had been taken in this country. Under the 1962 German labour law, there are now two boards of directors for each public company—the supervisory board, which includes representatives of capital as well as elected representatives of labour, and the managerial board, which is responsible to the supervisory board.
The hon. Member for Poplar drew a comparison. He pointed out that in Germany there was an 18 per cent. growth in unit costs and only a 5 per cent. increase in export prices. Whilst in this country there was a 17 per cent. growth in unit costs and a full 17 per cent. in-

crease in export prices. One of the great distinctions between Germany and ourselves has been on the question of labour relations, and the reform of German company law has had a great deal to do with it.

Mr. Mikardo: I must not quarrel with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) after the more than kindly references which he has made to my speech and after he has made a speech with which I agree about 85 or 90 per cent. However, when he joins me, as he promises to do—and I am grateful to him—in campaigning for a wide extension of industrial democracy in Great Britain, I hope that neither of us will be satisfied with getting just the German Mitbestimmungsrecht, which is more the form than the substance of democracy.

Mr. Hooson: I do not mind quarrelling with the hon. Member for Poplar at any time. A few years ago I should have agreed with him that the German law paid more attention to form than substance. However, my recent experience and inquiries in these matters show that that is not so. German trade unionists now place great value on the right of their representatives to be on the boards in Germany. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should not stop at that stage. All that I am pointing out is that Germany, a country which is in competition with Great Britain, has gone a great deal further in industrial democracy than we have. At least we should look over our shoulder at what is happening in that country and see what lessons we can learn which will benefit us. But we should not restrict ourselves to German experience. We should go further.
I shall give one illustration of the direction in which we should go. There should be substantial tax concessions to public and private companies which are prepared to introduce comprehensive profit-sharing agreements with their employees. How can one expect a man earning £30 a week and living in a rented house to accept a prices and incomes policy when over the road is a man earning £30 a week and living in his own house, who also has some shares? The latter is prepared to accept an incomes policy, because the capital appreciation on his house and shares means that he has an outside


source of wealth. There is this acute disparity and it creates a sense of unfairness.
Unless we create a sense of belonging in employees and of teamwork between employers and the employed, we shall have additional confrontations, increased polarisation, and a poor outlook for industrial relations.
The Labour Party's approach in "In Place of Strife" and the Tory approach in the Industrial Relations Act make no attempt to get to the basic structural defects of British industry. Basic reforms are necessary to cure the general malaise in British industry. We are still divided, as we were divided at the turn of the century, into the haves and have-nots, into those who have a vested interest in the profitability of their work and those who have not. It is the belief of the Liberals that it is useless to play, as the newspapers have suggested that Parliament would play, the game of "oranges and apples" with industrial relations. The newspapers have suggested that today is the scene of a gladiatorial contest between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, but industrial relations will not benefit from this. We need a much more mature and adult outlook at the whole problem of industrial relations than the present partisan battle allows.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I do not intend to cross swords with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I was interested in his theme of the link between incomes policy and industrial relations policy. In a way, it is my theme, but I will approach the matter in my own way.
The first point which struck me in this debate is that, apart from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, there has been little reference to the public interest. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition seemed to give himself over totally to the union point of view on industrial relations. When he came to reel off different groups which are outside the unions, he seemed to reject them totally as of no interest to him. However, we know that the public have a tremendous interest in industrial relations. The public are the third party. They are concerned because

when industrial relations are unsatisfactory it is the public who suffer from lack of services, particularly when there are crises because of wage awards.
I make no apology for looking at the economic side of industrial relations. While the Industrial Relations Act has been in operation, there has also been in operation an incomes policy, a de-escalation policy in terms of wages and prices. It has had—we cannot claim more—a fair measure of success so far. We heard last week that price increases since last December have been halved and that there has been a reduction on the whole in the level of wage settlements. Of course, there have been reverses—we on this side would be the first to acknowledge that—and of course the Industrial Relations Act has been involved in them. However, has there been such a reversal, as has been alleged by Mr. Brittan in the Financial Times? Has the de-escalation gone into reverse? The Government think not. They may well be right, but it is being said in the country that the de-escalation policy has been reversed, and it is as well that the Government should be aware of that view.
The reversal or part-reversal, if such there be, of the de-escalation policy has led to an increase in inflationary expectation. I am told that that is the dominant reason now for pessimism in this country. The British Market Research Bureau survey, which was published in the Financial Times, showed that only 17 per cent. of all adults now think that conditions will have improved in a year's time, compared with 24 per cent. in May, 28 per cent. in April and 31 per cent. in March. The June, 1972, result is only marginally better than the low recorded a year ago. The corollary to this is that 42 per cent. of the adult population think that conditions will have worsened in a year's time in terms of prices.
Whether we think that this is the result of our industrial relations policy, or of the reversal to that policy, or of some partial failure of our incomes policy, does not matter. The fact is that this inflationary expectation, this pessimism, is dominating the country and there is a fear, which again we would ignore at our peril, that the Government have lost control and that the unions are again in control. I would do less than justice to the House


and to myself if I did not say that this is my view about the feelings in the country at the moment.
What do we find today? The Opposisition are proving yet again that they are prepared to become—although I hesitate to say so—the tools of the trade unions. I thought that they had learnt their lessons from "In Place of Strife". But I supose that the greatest lesson of history is that men never learn its lessons. But how can the Opposition expect us on this side of the House at least not to have glimpsed the lesson, because we must clearly stand by the public interest? How are we to do so in terms of incomes policy and industrial relations policy?
There is a great deal of talk about a voluntary agreement between the TUC and the CBI, and the Government have stated clearly that this is not simply a matter for the TUC and the CBI but that the public also have an interest. But have we any grounds for thinking that a voluntary agreement would work? Could the TUC or anyone else enforce it? Thus, we come to the inevitable alternative, which is a statutory policy. There is—again do not let us underestimate it—a very strong feeling in the country that we shall eventually have to come to a statutory policy or some form of freeze. There is certainly public demand that the Government demonstrate their will to beat inflation, just as the United States Government demonstrated their will in August last year.
I quote a description from the OECD survey published last week to give some idea of the situation in the United States last year. It says:
Over the two years to last August, strong cost and price pressures have persisted in the face of sluggish demand and extensive unemployment. Both labour and management had come to expect that inflation would persist and the process of wage and price formation became dominated by such anticipation. Wage increases usually outstripped productivity gains substantially, reducing profit margins and making price increases inevitable. The three months' price/wage freeze after 15th August halted this spiral.
Of course, a freeze does not work for any considerable time. We know that it did not work for long in the United States last year, but there was a fall in consumer price trends in one quarter from 3·8 to 1·7 during the freeze and then prices rose

again by 3·4 after the freeze. Similarly, compensation per man hour in the last quarter of 1971, which was when the freeze was operational, was 4·2 up compared with 6·2 in the previous quarter, whereas in the first quarter of 1972, after the freeze was over, it had gone up again to 8·6.
We know a freeze does not work as such for any length of time, but we know that it can have a powerful psychological effect, that it may be a powerful demonstration of a Government's will to beat inflation, and I am afraid that we are approaching now a situation in which we must have this kind of psychological demonstration that the Government are still fully in control.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the psychological effect of a temporary freeze. Is he proposing that the freeze should apply only to wages and salaries? If the answer to that is, "No", to what else should it apply?

Mr. Roberts: I hope I did not imply that I intended that the freeze should apply purely to wages and salaries. Of course it would extend to prices as well. In my quotation from the OECD survey, I gave consumer prices as well as compensation per man-hour.

Mr. Mikardo: Would the hon. Gentleman apply it to capital gains, to dividends?

Mr. Roberts: I will not go into the question of the American freeze, but we have had a freeze in this country before. The point I am making is that we have now approached a state in industrial relations and in terms of incomes policy where we may very well have to have a freeze or a statutory policy of some kind. But I would hesitate to recommend it for the simple reason that I think we should realise fully what it would mean. When one has a statutory policy, it means that there has been a failure of democracy. A freeze or a statutory policy is an act of the centralised will, and that is surely a dangerous path for us ever to begin to tread.
Of course there may be other arguments for a statutory policy, particularly since the floating of the £, and the timing will undoubtedly be very delicate. The TUC and the CBI must clearly be allowed to develop their intiative, and it may well


be that the development of their initiative, with the Government's representation in that initiative of the public interest, will finally take over from the short freeze that we may be forced to have. The other major consideration is that the £ has got to find its right level and be fixed again. Then a freeze would surely be a clear indication to the country not only of our determination to beat inflation but also to maintain the value of the £. As such, it would be a demonstration to the world.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The last three speeches have averaged about 15 minutes each, for which I am grateful to the hon. Members concerned. I want to be able to call at least five more hon. Members from each side of the House and if the speeches are kept as brief as they have recently been, I shall be able to do so.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall do what I can to keep within your appeal, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) criticised my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister-designate—and I am getting a little tired of such suggestions—for not referring to the public interest when discussing the trade union interest. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the trade union movement has 9 million members. If the hon. Member uses the same criterion as is used when dealing with other sectors of the statistical area he will apppreciate that if we take into account the relatives of trade unionists we are talking about 22½ million people.
The hon. Member also raised the question of the statutory freeze. When the Prime Minister was speaking—incidentally, I thought that he showed a gross failure to appreciate the problems of industrial relations—he referred to the alternatives to confrontation and inflation, namely, some form of statutory incomes restriction. The Prime Minister is falling into the trap of believing that we can solve our industrial problems on the basis of a statutory freeze. I do not think that we can.
The Prime Minister showed a glimmer of understanding when he said that the solution of our industrial problems is of

paramount importance to us, as a trading nation. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) put his finger clearly on the spot. It is a question of creating the right climate. During the recent railways dispute I was talking to the guard-inspector on my train. He happened to know me. He said, "Mr. Loughlin, I should like you to see my pay slip for a 40-hour week, which I had four weeks ago. I work a full 40-hour week, and therefore you ought to assess the value of my job in economic terms on the basis of the 40-hour week." That man—a guard-inspector—was doing work that had previously been done by two individuals. He received a £1·03 mileage allowance, and his total take-home pay, after working 47 years on the railways, was £17 a week.
If we remember that last week Dick Marsh, the Chairman of the Railways Board—who is already earning £20,000 a year—received a wage increase of £50 a week, we appreciate that we can use all the sophisticated arguments in the world but we are never likely to be able to get them across to the workers on the shop floor. We cannot possibly begin to talk in terms of goods industrial relations unless we are prepared to redress the imbalance in our society and ensure the creation of a proper industrial relations climate.
The kernel of the argument is the question of the Government's social and industrial policies. It is no good talking about the number of industrial days lost; that argument has been flogged to death. The Government appear to imagine that because there has been a reduction in the number of strikes they have won a victory and that the enormous increase in the number of industrial days lost can just be shrugged off.
If we believe that industrial relation is of primary importance to a trading nation we must concern ourselves with the question of the sectors of industry in which strikes take place. If we examine the events of the last two years we find that strikes took place in the most vulnerable and vital parts of our economy—the docks, transport, the Post Office, and among the miners and the power workers—precisely the workers for whom it is essential to ensure continuity of production and employment. The biggest indictment of the Government's industrial


policy is that they have failed to maintain anything like continuity of employment in the most vital sectors of our economy.
There is a very good reason why we cannot maintain good industrial relations. I was a trade union official for 15 years before I came here. Like many others in the trade union movement, I have always taken the view that continuity of employment for 52 weeks in a year is much more important even than wage increases. The question of industrial relations involves many factors apart from the social and industrial policies pursued by the Government. In the area in which I have operated I have made a contribution to the improvement of the industrial practices that are necessary to maintain good industrial relations.
One of the clear deficiencies of British industry is its failure to appreciate the significance of the immediate supervisory people—the charge hands, foremen and departmental managers. I am not saying that Governments alone can superimpose upon industry conditions under which good industrial relations are possible, but it is essential—given an attempt by both sides of industry, at shop floor level to produce good industrial relations—that the Government should see that their social and industrial policies make it possible to persuade workpeople that they are getting a fair deal.
We have reached a situation in which, because of the policies of selectivity adopted by the Government—this is an extremely important point and I hope that the Minister will acquaint his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet of this situation—a man with three children is often worse off in consequence of a wage increase, because of the loss of various reliefs to which he was formerly entitled, in the form of family income supplement, rent rebates, school meals, and so on. To such people a wage increase of £2 or £3 a week is completely invalid. Once the Housing Finance Bill is on the Statute Book a man with three children will need a wage increase of £4 a week simply in order to stand still, without allowing for the increase in the cost of living.
The Government have created that situation because of their emphasis on

selectivity. It is no good arguing against workers who apply for £2 or £3 a week increase in wages if we recognise that unless some workers receive more than that sum they will lose money in terms of the reliefs that they could formerly claim.
The first essential for the creation of good industrial relations is immediately to withdraw the Housing Finance Bill, which will merely exacerbate the existing position. If that Bill comes into full operation, it will merely increase the impetus towards higher and higher wage increases, for increasing their wages will be the only way in which people will be able to maintain a reasonable standard of living, quite regardless of any rebates they may get.
The Government talk about differentials in industry. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is no longer with us. He mentioned the German system of trade unionism. Our system has grown up over a hundred years, and of course craft differentials have crept in over that long period. I do not object to craft differentials, and nor do hon. Gentlemen opposite. Certainly no Minister does, because without them he would not be receiving his present salary. An enormous number of people—chairmen of boards of directors, shareholders, politicians, professional people—believe in differentials. The only objection that I have ever heard to them comes when a skilled engineer, for instance, wants to maintain his differential against a semiskilled engineer.
Why is it that, with one or two specific exceptions, many people in society are able to get for themselves exactly what they like in the way of salaries—so I understand is to be the case under the dividend stripping Amendment which the Government have agreed to make to the Finance Bill and which will result in enormous improvement in the marginal taxation rates for directors and others—when increases for industrial workers are made in the light of full publicity? Surely it is not only industrial workers who have had substantial wage increases in the last two years.
I react precisely as most industrial workers do in these matters, and I have always thought it totally unfair that the


wages of an industrial worker should be scrutinised to the nth degree, whereas an enormous number of people—not the sharks, not the land speculators, and goodness knows that we have enough of them, not the builders who have had land banks over the years and who are now making a packet out of the people, but all sorts of people genuinely making a contribution to society—are able to have their remuneration without let or hindrance. Industrial workers are constantly subject to tribunals of one kind or another. There should be a different kind of tribunal and when managers or chairmen of boards of directors or professional people want wage increases, they should have to go to a tribunal where the chairman would be a barrister, but where there would be a miner on one side and an engineer on the other.
Why should it always be assumed that the academic and the business men are able to determine the standard of living of an industrial worker and that the industrial worker should have no influence on the standard of living of those who are not industrial workers? The one way in which to get good industrial relations is to create circumstances in which there may be a climate of fairness, in which people may believe that they are being fairly and decently treated by the Government.
The Industrial Relations Act is a shocking example of the Government not knowing where they are going. The Chobham Farm strike was a near squeak for the Government and the nation, and in another similar incident we might be in serious trouble having not just a strike in one industry, but a general strike. If that happens, there will not be the collapse of 1926, for the modern trade union leader such as Jack Jones and Scanlon will recognise what a general strike is. They will recognise it as a revolutionary situation.
There is always the danger of a repetition of the Chobham Farm incident, with trade unionists likely to be put into prison. If that happens the Government will not have merely a one-industry strike on their hands: they will have a general strike and thus they will have a revolutionary situation over which neither they nor the official trade union movement will have any control.
If any trade unionists are put into gaol, I will do precisely what those trade unionists have done, because in part I am responsible for the creation among trade unionists of the demand for the right to defend themselves. The first thing that must be done if we are to begin to rebuild the fences in industrial relations is to get rid of this vicious, nasty, union-bashing piece of legislation. Both the present Lord President of the Council and the Solicitor-General said that it would not result in people going to prison. They have been proved wrong.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) indicated dissent.

Mr. Loughlin: They did say that; the right hon. Gentleman may deny it if he likes.

Mr. Macmillan: I ought to make it clear. My right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend made it perfectly plain that there was no possibility of anybody going to prison on a criminal charge as a result of the provisions of the Act. This is in contradistinction to the penal clauses of the Labour Party's provisional document. They also made it plain that if anyone were in contempt of court in a civil suit he would be exposed to such action as the court decided, as he would be in a civil suit in any other court.

Mr. Loughlin: I will not pursue the matter. The right hon. Gentleman did not attend the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill. I attended them night after night.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): My right hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Loughlin: No. Sit down. The argument was that people could not be put into prison. I have been proved right on that. If they are put into prison there will never be any good industrial relations; the situation will be much worse. Not only will there be a general strike but there will be such chaos that this Government will be washed away—and I hope that they will be.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I have listened to more of the debates on the


Industrial Relations Bill than the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), although he was there for a considerable amount of time. I should like to confirm what the Secretary of State said, because this was repeated over and over again. I have a feeling that I shall not embarrass the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) if I say that he will concur in this.
The speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West seemed to be a criticism of the new measures by the Government to improve the financial position of the lower-paid workers. He seemed to be saying that there was no incentive for them to work. The whole problem of differentials is difficult, for the trade unions and the employers. I have yet to see any of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues agree that the differentials in their unions should be reduced so as to allow the lower-paid in another industry to receive a larger income.
The major speech from the Opposition today came from the Leader of the Opposition and of all his many trivial speeches this was the most trivial. I call in aid the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) who said that throughout the speech there was not a single constructive suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman adopted an absurd posture, with his left hand pounding the Dispatch Box, criticising the Government and the Act, while his right hand held above his head a brand-new plastic halo to show what a wonderful job he did as Prime Minister during the prices and incomes policy period. It was notable that his remarks were not received with overwhelming enthusiasm by some of his back benchers and although there was almost a full turn-out of the Shadow Cabinet, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was conspicuous by her absence.

Mr. Heffer: She was sitting there.

Mr. Page: If I am wrong, I withdraw, but I do not believe that I am, because I looked pretty carefully. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition was divisive, going back to his old purple passage class warfare type of speech. Worse, he has gone back even further, to the "lower than vermin" mentality.
He said that Conservative trade unionists were blacklegs, meaning that those 20 per cent. of trade unionists who already contract out of the political levy are presumably blacklegs and the 40 per cent. or so of trade unionists who voted Conservative at the last election are also blacklegs. That ought to be recorded because they are equally steadfast members of their unions. What they do not like is the association which their unions have with the Labour Party.
I intended to go through a long history of the Labour Party's activities in connection with prices and incomes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but because of Mr. Speaker's ruling I will not do so. If ever there were an opportunity for a voluntary or statutory incomes policy, it was during the years 1965–69, starting with Lord George-Brown's declaration of intent, going through the voluntary period, the statutory period, the nil norm and all the rest. Tragically for the country, this was found to be a total failure and I am glad that the Government are not succumbing to the many suggestions on this point in the Press and elsewhere, including some of my hon. Friends, who have a hankering to go through the Garden of Eden and pluck this particularly dangerous apple.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Surely my hon. Friend would agree that if Parliament and not just one party supported a statutory prices and incomes policy, it would have some chance of success?

Mr. Page: That is an interesting suggestion but if both sides of Parliament totally supported such a policy—and I should find it difficult to do so—and if the TUC were to endorse such a policy, I still do not believe that it would necessarily be able to deliver the goods. That is why I abandoned the idea.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: What is the alternative?

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend asks what is the alternative, and if he will be quiet I will get more quickly to a couple of suggestions about this at the end of my speech.
In the four months in which the Industrial Relations Act has been fully operative it has scored a number of important successes and it will continue to be more and more influential as the years


go by. The Act has proved that the framework of law in industrial relations can and will be accepted by large numbers of workpeople. It is an Act which has caused Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington to get a committee going on the docks industry, an Act which on two occasions stopped the rail go-slow and an Act which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) said, has enabled over 500 cases out of 1,600 brought under its powers to be settled by conciliation without the necessity of appearing before a tribunal.
The most insidious line of attack by the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as by Mr. Feather and other trade union leaders, is that the Act is bringing British justice into disrepute. I would say that the other side of the coin is the fact. It is the approach during debates, the approach to the Act and to the courts after the Bill became an Act which does more than anything else to denigrate the validity of this part of the High Court. This afternoon we had an ex-Prime Minister discussing part of the High Court and saying that it was a puppet of the Government. That was one of the lowest and most degrading occasions in the many degrading occasions in his speeches recently.
I do not believe there is any panacea or magic wand to deal with inflation. When we are dealing with a cost-push inflation we have to make the old-fashioned, well-tried negotiations between employer and employee work better. Managers are becoming more conscious of the importance of industrial relations. I hope that they will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the good Code of Industrial Relations Practice, because if it is put into operation in factories and other places of work it will go a long way towards stopping many of the causes of disputes.
There is no doubt that the much-publicised disputes and negotiations in the public sector have a bad influence on other factory negotiations which take place throughout the country. It is not acceptable to say that a nationalised industry, in its ability to pay wage increases, can be exactly correlated with ordinary businesses. Behind ordinary businesses are the shareholders and bank managers, and they can put up the shutters. Anybody who works in or has anything to do with a nationalised industry

knows that the taxpayer and the Treasury are behind the negotiations in that industry. I have no firm views on this matter, but it would seem to me worth searching with the unions and employers for some way of tying wage increases in the nationalised industries alone to increases in the cost of living. I know that there are difficulties and that it fixes a position on the ladder, but it would be worth looking into this matter carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has left the Chamber before hearing my two final suggestions, which is disappointing, so I hope that he will read them in HANSARD tomorrow. I preface my remarks by saying that I welcome the discussions which are to take place at Downing Street tomorrow with the TUC, and I hope that the further discussions with the CBI will be fruitful. I read in the Press that the main object of the discussions is to consider new means of arbitration and conciliation.
It has been suggested in the newspapers that the conciliation side of the Department of Employment might have to be hived off. I see no reason why that should not be desirable or why the conciliation side should not be a separate agency. However, there never seems to me to be much joy in arbitration unless both sides agree beforehand to abide by the results of it. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. However, I ask my right hon. Friend, in his discussions on arbitration—and probably he has already taken this into consideration—to discuss with the CBI and the TUC what is known as best-offer selection by arbitrators whereby the arbitrator or tribunal is able only to accept one or other of the solutions put forward by the different sides in the dispute. They are not allowed to take a knife and split it down the middle. They may not reject. There are similarities to the wage council procedures. In this way, both sides, at the start of the arbitration, would try to bring their suggestions closer to the most reasonable, acceptable and realistic offer.
Secondly—and also this relates to the meeting which is to take place tomorrow—it is disappointing that there is not a more continuing forum for discussion between the Government, the TUC and the CBI. I wonder whether some means might be created whereby discussions


could take place continually with a continuing agenda, the results being published so that the country may have the distillation of the views of the parties concerned and can read about them. By continually kicking about such problems as the problems of the lower-paid workers instead of having the occasional result of an ad hoc discussion, we might have a more fruitful result and greater co-operation and understanding of the views of the parties on the problems which beset us all.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Secretary of State for Employment said the other day that he had learned a lot during the recent railway dispute. I gained the impression from the speech of the Prime Minister that not only has the Secretary of State learned a lot, but the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government, for the first time in their lives, are in the process of learning something about industrial relations.
The Prime Minister said that there had been consultations with the Trades Union Congress at the time that the Industrial Relations Bill was mooted. That is not absolutely correct. What happened was that the then Secretary of State, now the Leader of the House, said that the Government could not discuss the principles but that the TUC could have consultations on the detail. As the trade union movement had already indicated that it did not want laws of that kind to be introduced, there was no point in discussing the details of the Bill if the basic principles could not be discussed. It was on that basis only that the TUC was not prepared to enter into the phoney consultations about which the Prime Minister talked today.
It is a matter of profound regret that we have had to go through the operation of the Industrial Relations Act for a number of months before the Government can get round the table to discuss industrial relations issues with the trade union movement. The Government are learning, but it has taken them a long time to learn. They have to receive a series of bloody noses from the trade unions in confrontation before they can get some sense into their thick heads about industrial relations issues.
This afternoon the Prime Minister made a number of points which need to be answered in this debate. First, he said that the Industrial Relations Act, by the way in which it had operated in the case of the railwaymen, had been extremely beneficial to the community. I pointed out in an intervention in his speech that what had happened was that the NUR and the other two railway unions involved reduced their wage claim because they were asked to do so by the British Railways Board. They were still open for negotiation, but the Board was told clearly by the Government that there was a norm and that it must not go beyond it.
The situation was that Mr. Marsh quite clearly said to the whole world, "There is nothing more I can do about it; I have no more money available." The Government were telling Mr. Marsh and the Board that they could not go beyond a certain figure at that time. The whole work to rule could have been avoided if the Government had not taken the stand which they did. There could have been a solution and an agreement long before there was any question of a dispute.
Therefore, the Industrial Relations Act has made not one contribution to settling the railway dispute. What it did was to unite the whole of the workers in the industry including, incidentally, non-unionists. It is the most interesting that when the ballot took place non-unionists also voted in support of the national executive of the union. Although they were not members of the union they supported the national executive in the ballot.
Let us look at the situation which exists for the dockers. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I come from Merseyside. I, too, have large numbers of dockers in my constituency. Many of the dock workers are my personal friends and members of my party. They are members of a trade union to which I do not belong but with which, nevertheless, I have been in association over a number of years. What were those workers doing? They were carrying out normal trade union activities in relation to the blacking of certain lorries entering the port of Liverpool. They set up a joint committee with the transport section of the Transport and General


Workers Union. They put forward a series of proposals and demands to the employers.
Many of the transport employers actually signed an agreement with the TGWU, but then there were people like Mr. Heaton, who was prepared to use the Industrial Relations Act to create a confrontation, undoubtedly believing that the Government were behind him in the confrontation. The situation was that those workers, as I said, were carrying out the blacking of vehicles in the normal, traditional way of trade unionists, in the same way that the Chobham Farm workers, and the dockers there, were blacking, again on the basis of fear of loss of their jobs because of containerisation.
What has happened at Chobham Farm? Agreement has been reached by the trade union with the employers that the workers who work inside Chobham Farm should be retained and that new workers taken on will be members of the docks section of the Transport and General Workers Union.
That decision could equally and easily have been arrived at without the introduction of the Industrial Relations Act, which, as I say, has not made one single contribution towards solving any industrial relations problem. On the contrary, it has hampered the development of a solution both of the railways dispute and of the dispute in the docking industry. It has not helped and it cannot help towards solving the containerisation problem.
Let us have a look at the whole question of containerisation. In Liverpool in the last 10 years we have lost something like 5,000 to 6,000 workers on the docks, and the workers, in an area where there are 51,000 unemployed, are naturally concerned as to the future of their employment. No Member of this House would feel any differently if he were in the same position as that of the dockers on Merseyside or in London or in any area where there has been extensive containerisation.
What is the Act doing? Under that Act the puppet court—I will equally use the term used by my right hon. Friend—the puppet court very quickly decides that three men are in contempt of that court for carrying out normal, traditional

activities of trade unions. What actually happened? A hell of a row, a glorious confrontation in the whole of the docks industry. I remember that during the passage of the Bill I said from the Front Bench that the first docker arrested or threatened with arrest would cause a national docks strike. I did not expect it to come so quickly, but there we were, poised on the edge of a national docks strike, because of the existence of the Industrial Relations Act, but for which there would not have been that confrontation.
Then out of the blue we had the good fairy, the Official Solicitor, of whom no one had ever heard; most people in this country did not even know who the Official Solicitor was. He comes out of the blue, this man who apparently has been hiding for years; he emerges, and stops the dock strike by going to the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court also upheld the appeal. All this is in contrast to what I would call the wicked fairy, the Solicitor-General, because this situation in the industrial relations process arises precisely because of the activities of the Solicitor-General and his drafting of his Act which has not made one single contribution towards solving the problems of industrial relations.
I have only a few more minutes left to speak, and I must say it is very difficult to condense into a quarter of an hour all one wishes to say. I could have made a speech which would probably have lasted three-quarters of an hour in relation to the Industrial Relations Act.
We have been told that we on this side of the House have not made any positive suggestions. The first positive suggestion is that this Government tomorrow, when they meet the TUC, should agree with the proposal by Mr. Feather and his colleagues that, pending repeal of the Act, the Act should be put on ice. The Government could fairly quickly repeal the Act if they desired. Of course, they have said they are not prepared to repeal it. At least, however, they could make certain that it is put on ice, and they could urge the employers not to use it, but to ignore it, to ensure that we do not get that sort of confrontation which we have had in the past few weeks. That is the first sensible thing this Government could do. That is a positive contribution.
Secondly, the Government could seriously discuss with the TUC and the CBI the ideas that are being developed by them. Both the TUC and the CBI are extremely worried about the operation of the Industrial Relations Act. The Government could discuss how much financial aid should be given to the independent conciliation service which is being proposed by the TUC. That is an equally positive step.
Thirdly, if the Government are serious about better industrial relations, they should accept the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill which was introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) and again this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which has gone through its Committee stage. If the Government were to accept that Bill and put it into operation is could lead to improvement in welfare and health services in industry.
All those things can be done now and they would be a positive contribution towards the improvement of industrial relations. All this talk we have heard about putting trade unions in their place and making certain that the big unions are held back from future development can stop. If the Minister is serious about industrial relations, he will accept the proposals which I have put forward, but I feel that he and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have no intention whatsoever of getting to grips with a real solution to our industrial relation problem. The Government have had to retreat in the granting of money to industry, the lame duck policy has now gone out of the window and they are having to retreat on the industrial relations front as well.
The Government should tell the TUC tomorrow, "We want to solve this problem; we do not want a confrontation. We recognise already that the Act is not leading to better industrial relations and, on that basis, we are prepared to put it on ice and discuss the conciliation procedures which you have suggested."
The way is open for the Government it they are prepared to take it. The question is whether they are prepared to take this step tomorrow or whether the proceedings tomorrow will be just one further manoeuvre by the Government to try to get themselves out of the imposible situa-

tion which has resulted from the stupid and vicious piece of legislation which they put on the Statute Book last year.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. David Madel: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in an industrial relations debate, especially when he brings into his speech his practical experience of industries on Merseyside. He mentioned the railway dispute and the docks dispute, and I hope he will forgive me if I leave until later in my speech my comments on the railway dispute. As has been predicted, the debate is a continuation of last Thursday's debate and to some extent a post mortem on this year's major industrial disputes. It is also an inquiry into the political parties' attitudes to a prices and incomes policy.
During the economic debate last Thursday it was said that as a result of television, greater mobility, affluence and increasing education, the public are probably more aware than they have been at any time in our history of the current economic arguments and realities. This presents a great opportunity for the Government, the CBI and the TUC to state their economic and industrial relations cases, as they have a public willing to listen, observe and contribute as the various arguments are followed through.
During the coal dispute earlier this year the public saw a vigorous Press advertising campaign mounted by the National Union of Mineworkers, a rather half-hearted attempt to meet this challenge in words by the National Coal Board and Government intervention to end the dispute somewhat late in the day.
On the railway dispute, which at one stage looked like being the dispute without end, I do not believe the public felt that the late arbitration intervention by Mr. Jarratt could succeed, if only because the issues were of a complexity that demanded more time for an arbitrator to succeed than a heavy weekend's work.
Thus, we have a situation in which the public find it highly desirable that there should be an incomes commission to process and examine wage or salary claims so that the public know the real cost both to the industry concerned and to the nation if a claim were to be met


in full. An expanded office of manpower economics could well take up this task, but I am the first to admit that without public support such a commission will get nowhere in helping in the battle against inflation. The membership of such a commission is particularly important, as was stressed by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). It would have to have on it people with specific responsibility for certain groups in our society and also someone to represent the pensioners, who are very often forgoten in these industrial confrontations.
Let no one imagine that such a commission can necessarily make an early impact on the economic and industrial scene. Its ability to become an influence will arise from its reports and opinions as they become widely known and as they are respected as being fair and reasonable judgments of particular claims, provided that the reports are presented in a way that is easily comprehensible to the public.
I read in yesterday's newspapers that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers said that this year's wage claim would possibly be larger than last year's. Today he has gone even further and said that he will also call for changes in fringe benefits and payments for shift work. That is the sort of claim that an incomes commission could start to examine now and to hear evidence from both sides. We should then begin to have a climate of informed public opinion on a wage claim affecting a vital industry.
With the ending of the old National Board for Prices and Incomes and the beginning of the working of the Industrial Relations Court some people have felt that the latter was merely taking over the work of the former. That is obviously not so, and the Government are right to stress that the Act can play only a limited part in industrial relations, although, as we have seen in recent weeks, the Act if used in certain ways can bring us to the brink of a Grade A industrial crisis.
What we have seen during this year is much greater public appreciation of the changing pattern of work in this country. What stands out from letters I have received and conversations I have

had with constituents on the question of the proposed higher salaries for the heads of nationalised industries and judges is the feeling amongst the public that what is important is not only the salary, which is of course generous, but also how rewarding and interesting is the job. People contrast that with the repetitive, boring and often dirty jobs which so many people have to do and they remember the great industrial disputes that have occurred over these people's pay during the past few months, and the consequent hardship when, in the ultimate, labour was withdrawn.
If we are to get people to do these labour-intensive jobs, we must make them as financially attractive as possible and remember that the attitude of the people doing them can be easily soured if there are appeals for restraining incomes which do not appear to them or their union leadership to be fairly based. Nor should we forget that it is not only a question of persuading union leadership to a particular point of view; it is the total membership that has to be convinced, and their attitude can easily be formed and changed by how they see other groups in society being treated.
I have mentioned the need for an incomes commission, but I also believe that we are looking in this debate at the whole nature and pattern of work and not just the pay for it. I should like to see much more research into hours of work and the reduction of hours that is likely to come in the next decade as well as into the changing pattern of demand for labour in certain industries. There is a considerable task to be fulfilled in getting across to the public the facts about how manpower requirements are likely to change in this decade. Here is a field where there should be much easier and more fruitful cooperation between Government and both sides of industry.
I welcome the fact that the Government are holding firmly to their policy of a 5 per cent. growth rate, which is now at last producing a fall in unemployment, but the central problem of agreeing on the level of pay settlements still remains. If the Government can provide social leadership, I believe that it is within our power to convince all sections of the public that the benefits of a fast-growing


mixed economy can be made to benefit everyone.
Policies such as more trade union participation in industry, as to how particular industry should grow, can help towards removing the idea that a union should be in a permanent state of dispute with an employer. But at this stage the immediate need is for some form of incomes commission. Therefore, I hope that before the House rises for the Summer Recess the Government will have in being the outline of such a commission.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I have rarely had to listen to such a ragbag of distortion and downright misrepresentation as that to which we were treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister today. It is clear from all he said that he paid scant regard to the now rather numerous decisions which have been made under the Industrial Relations Act. He cleverly managed to quote from Lord Donovan—though not from Lord Donovan speaking with experience of that Act, but from words uttered by Lord Donovan prior to decisions on the Act. And when the right hon. Gentleman was pressed, he refused to say when the speech was made.
The Prime Minister criticised those of us who referred to the court as a puppet court, but the Court of Appeal itself when considering applications by the Minister said that it was no more than a rubber stamp. It is regrettable that the Prime Minister did not seem to understand the difference between telling people to do something that is unlawful and telling people not to register. In some cases there may be an argument for registration, but the fact is that registration is not mandatory and nobody has to register under the Act, and there is nothing unlawful about a trade union that does not register under the Act. It was therefore deliberately misleading to the House to suggest that the two things were the same.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—who dropped the cooling-off period, and I thought she acted rightly since I have never supported "In Place of Strife"—and said that the cooling-off

period was in the Bill, when in fact it was not.
If ever there was an occasion which merited the expression "You were warned", it is the tragi-comedy that has resulted from the Industrial Relations Act. The present Government have succeeded not only in producing an unprecedented trebling of days lost in strikes, but in bringing about a national power crisis, a national miners' strike, a dislocation of our railways, and in bringing the country within a hair's breadth of a national dock strike. This is what has brought the law and the courts into disrepute.
Sir John Donaldson may have displayed a disturbing eagerness and enthusiasm in implementing the Act, but by clothing in judicial robes decisions which ought properly to be those of a competent Minister, the court was made into a rubber stamp in deciding upon the strike ballot and a cooling-off period for railwaymen. It was a denial of natural justice that the Minister could refuse to give reasons for his application, and we still do not know what those reasons were. Indeed, the result of that strike ballot showed that there was no good reason whatever if we look at The Times Law Report of 17th May this year. It was the case of the Secretary of State v. ASLEF and others in the Court of Appeal and that case shows that unless the court is willing to pronounce the Minister either a knave or a fool, it must give him what he wants. Mr. Pain for ASLEF said:
If you cannot challenge even that"—
he was referring to the Minister's belief—
what is the good of having a court at all?
Lord Justice Buckley thereupon replied:
In a sense under Section 142 the court is a rubber stamp because, unless you can show that the application was unjustified, the court is bound to make the order. We do not know what evidence the Secretary of State had and I cannot see any means by which he can be compelled to disclose it.
This is precisely the point which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was trying to make and which the Prime Minister ducked earlier in this debate. We all know in retrospect that the Minister was wrong because of the result of the strike ballot. The whole charade is based on the Tory mythology of irresponsible militants like Sir Sidney Green driving their passive members into


industrial action like heavy locomotives pulling empty freight wagons.
Cooling-off was never on. The Government were warned, but they chose to ignore the evidence and to adopt the dogma of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General. He was told—and he knew this because he had studied the American system—that the Senate Committee on Labour and Public Welfare had reported to Congress that
the experience of the cooling-off period was not a happy one since it was too frequently used as a device for bringing to a rapid crisis disputes which might have been solved by patient negotiation.
He might also have seen in the April, 1969, issue of Personnel and Training Management a detailed analysis of the American Taft-Hartley legislation which warned that,
the net effect may be merely to postpone rather than alleviate industrial discord.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment failed to take any advantage of the time available during the cooling-off period and succeeded only in increasing discord.
By the same token the strike ballot is an even greater nonsense when imposed in this way, especially where the workers were not breaking their contracts but were working to rule. The same authority states:
The leaders can no longer accept adjustments which would have offered a sound basis for agreement before the vote was taken.
The problem of the strike ballot is that it prevents flexibility in negotiation, and the quotation from the Senate Committee could well have been written with the railway dispute in mind. Compromise and flexibility have become more difficult and one may ask whether a union ought now to have a strike ballot on the question whether it should accept a further offer, as happened in the case of the railway men.
What happened was that the obtuse actions of the Government, in taking out their new toy rather prematurely, have not only inconvenienced the public but have brought our legal system into disrepute. This is what I am concerned about. I believe the unions kept their dignity during this period of terrible provocation, and I believe that no loyal trade unionist can remain complacent

when the Tory Government bring the courts of law into politics. This is the most serious count in the indictment against the Government.
The second count concerns the law of contempt. I do not want to go into this in great detail, but the smooth assurances of the Solicitor-General, and the Duke of Plaza Toro who now leads the House from behind, have been shown up for what they are worth when they speak of imprisonment for contempt. I quote from The Times Law Report of 15th June in Churchman and Others v. Steer and Others:
Three dockers who defied an interim order made by the National Industrial Relations Court on Monday restraining them from seeking to prevent lorries from entering or leaving the container depot at Chobham Farm, Leyton Road, Stratford, were committed to prison for contempt of court.
Sir John Donaldson said:
Once again the court was concerned with whether the rule of law was to be maintained.
That decision produced chaos. We had warned that workers in industry would not accept this, that if one goes to prison someone else will take his place. An Act which purported to curb militancy had played right into the hands of militants, as Lord Robens warned, and as I and others warned when we found the Bill, as we did in the House.
Like some deus ex machina, the Official Solicitor appeared. Some people had never heard of the Official Solicitor before. A dock brief was given to the redoubtable Mr. Peter Pain, who perhaps ought to be president of the NIRC, in view of his rather sterling services: at least, he would give it some credibility. Lo and behold, Lord Denning, reported in The Times of 16th June, in the Court of Appeal saved Sir John and the Minister's chestnuts or bacon, or whatever else they may be losing, by his decision.
It transpired, according to the court, that someone had sworn at the driver of a vehicle. Lord Denning opined, in his rather unique way for which we all admire him, that he
did not know that swearing was a breach of the order".
Section 134 still allowed peaceful picketing and
that matter must be proved with all the satisfaction which the court habitually required before depriving the subject of his liberty".


Apparently the NIRC did not think that. Thank goodness Lord Denning did, because that averted a national dock strike. Lord Denning's words prevented the country from being plunged into worse chaos than the floating of the £ plunged it into last week.
The Solicitor-General is now in the dock. I remember warning him when I was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench prior to a rather important vote. I was accused by the Daily Telegraph at that time of being Jesuitical, whatever "Jesuitical" may mean in this context. I suggested that the criminal law was being brought into industrial relations. I suggested that whether committal for contempt was called "civil", "criminal" or "quasi-criminal" the result was the same, namely, prison.
All that we got from the other side at that time was a flippant attitude to the problem. The Solicitor-General, clinging to the ivory towers in the Temple, refusing to venture into the real world, as, happily, some members of the legal profession do, or have had to do during their lives, would not recognise that the only ultimate and final solution, once the law is introduced into industrial relations, must be, and can only be, the threat of imprisonment, namely, by using the law of contempt. That is the second count on the indictment.
The third count is that similarly the Solicitor-General failed to face up to the problem created by attempting to place the duty of taking action upon union officials against persons who are effectively outside their control—what we referred to freqeuntly during the debates as policing, expecting trade union officials to police their members and their shop stewards.
It was argued during the case against the Transport and General Workers' Union by Heaton's Transport of St. Helens, as reported in The Times of 9th June, that
The court said to the union, 'You have founded the office of shop steward which not only has rights and duties but also responsibilities. You must stop what they are doing'.
That was the case against them.
On 9th June the headline in The Times was
Union must act to secure shop stewards' obedience".

A little while later, I think on 19th June, the headline in The Times was
Union not liable for blacking by shop stewards".
The decision was stood on its head—rightly—by the Court of Appeal. One wonders what the NIRC was playing at to come to so remarkable a decision. The Master of the Rolls was again putting Sir John Donaldson and the NIRC straight when he said this:
The shop stewards were not acting as representatives of the union but as representatives of their own work groups.
This was something that my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and myself had stressed to those who argued in favour of that at that time. We always argued that the unions could not be made responsible. We argued that that was the position and that there would be great confusion, if the Bill became law, with regard to what a union should do to look after its members.
Curiously, we debated that matter. Many other matters were not debated because of the guillotine, but we debated that matter in some detail. The fears of my right hon. Friend, of my hon. Friends and of myself turned out to be only too justified, because we pointed out that the Bill does not define what is reasonably practicable. The then Minister told us gently that
It is clear that very few cases will come to it".
One came to it very speedily. I ask him to tell that to Jack Jones.
The Minister attempted to laugh out of court the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and myself with regard to this problem. The Minister said that we were exaggerating, that it was flights of fancy, and all the rest of it. I replied:
The Minister should not say that it is nonsense when my hon. Friend the Member for Walton or I refer to expulsions or sanctions, such as suing members. He has only to turn up the evidence given by the Solicitor-General to the Donovan Commission. He was asked: 'How would you suggest the unions should go about it? Sue its members?'
'Sue its members, yes'.
'What do you say about the men themselves?'
'I would think one of the things the union would have to say was that it was intending to suspend and expel them'.


Earlier I had suggested that
the trade union movement will suffer fines if they fail to police the very thing they fail to accept…he is bringing into disrepute not the trade union movement…but unfortunately the law itself.
I have never purported to be a prophet, but on that occasion I might claim exemption from that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said from the Front Bench, summing the whole matter up—that the Minister was
putting an obligation on people against which they are protesting and then saving, 'What is more, we will fine you if you do not police our law to which you object'.
The right hon. Gentleman had the cool cheek to reply:
as she has described it, it is a complete travesty of what the Bill says.
The decision of the NIRC was precisely that, and it is the former Secretary of State for Employment who was guilty of the complete travesty. It is the Prime Minister who has been guilty of misrepresentation and travesty today. If some of us are indignant, it is because we were subjected to so many distortions during that time and since. That is the third count on the indictment, and the Government have been spared from their own folly only by the ruling on that specific instance of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning.
Meanwhile—this is another source of irritation—bogus bodies are registering on the register of trade unions, bodies which are financed by employers, and unions legitimately refusing to register are virtually being called law-breakers by the Prime Minister. They are, as a result, refused the right of an agency shop.
When this matter was taken up with the Chief Registrar, the reply was that he did not have the staff to cope with the problem, that he did not have the staff to decide whether unions were genuine unions. It is a rather damning indictment of the Act that that can be the case. We now have the mushrooming of those unions, not to speak of the fragmentation that the NIRC's decision would have resulted in had it not been overruled by the Court of Appeal.
All that the Act has done is to succeed, as we forecast, in injecting into industry a bitterness that has been unknown in the post-war period. It is a sick joke, not only in industry but in the legal pro-

fession. It is no secret that talk about dock briefs and official soliciting and such other jokes is going around the Temple and everywhere else where lawyers get together.
It is a disgrace, not only to the House, but to lawyers, that we were steamrollered into passing a Bill that was almost unintelligble. I had an example only today before an industrial tribunal where the unintelligibility of the drafting of the Solicitor-General was to blame for a legal point that had to be decided.
The sooner this Statute is swept away, the sooner it is repealed as far as it introduces law into industrial relations in a punitive fashion, and the sooner its authors are swept from power, the sooner will the wheels of industry begin to turn again. We need lubricants instead of spanners in the works, conciliation, not compulsion, and arbitration rather than legal enforcement. Those are the tools we require.
The Government should be big enough to admit their dangerous actions, as yet not catastrophic, will be catastrophic unless they decide that this Act, which has already caused so much confusion and bitterness, is repealed. One of my hon. Friends suggested that it might be "put on ice", at least for the time being, so that we can get on with the real job of making industrial relations work in a harmonious way in this country.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was less than fair in many of his strictures, and in particular in casting doubt on the sincerity of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those of us on this side of the House in our desire to see an end to this bitter fighting which is doing nobody any good.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) was carried away by that bitterness. However, the speeches of both hon. Gentlemen were to be preferred considerably to the speech of their right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who opened the debate. It is incredible that a man who has been Prime Minister of this country should throw so much cheap kerosene on an important situation that is already overheated to such a degree, and his personal


attack on my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General plumbed the very depths.
I want to get right away from any such thoughts. I want to try to restore a little balance on grounds which I feel may be acceptable to anyone who is prepared to consider this difficult problem on the merits. I do so in the form of two requests.
The first is a request to hon. Members in this House and to everyone outside that, if they have in mind to criticise the law—that is perfectly fair do's; it is more than fair do's; it is the duty of all of us to do it when it is called for—they should first inform themselves about it. Surely that is a reasonable request. How could anybody think otherwise? But we have had a classic example of failing to do so today, in the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that "it is not for the courts to decide where the national interest lies". I agree, but it was a wholly irrelevant and misleading observation to make.
For a cooling-off order the court has to be satisfied about two requirements. On one of them the word of the Secretary of State is final—I am speaking briefly to save time—so the control stays in this House and that decision is open to question here.

Mr. Rose: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Percival: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point.

Mr. Rose: On that point.

Mr. Percival: No. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
On the other point—it is not a question of where the national interest lies—the decision lies with the court. The court has to be satisfied on the evidence that if the threatened industrial action took place there would be a likelihood of grave injury to the national economy.
I take the view that it is wrong for such extreme compulsory powers as those included in Part VIII to be solely under the control of the executive. They should be subject to some control from outside. One sphere in which they can be controlled is that which I have just men-

tioned. I do not think those powers should ever be available to an executive except where there is a likelihood of grave injury to the national economy. I think it is right that that control should be exercised by the court.
Why I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Rose: Mr. Rose rose——

Mr. Percival: I am not giving way now. I did not give way to him because I can see there is room for argument about that. One can say that there ought to be more control either in this House or in the court. However, what I do not accept, or what I very much dislike, is the way these matters, which are proper for discussion, are misrepresented as this was today.
We have had other errors on matters of law today. The hon. Member for Blackley—I warn him that I shall comment on one matter he mentioned—said that the railwaymen were not breaking their contracts; they were working to rule. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I was in the court. What had to be established was that some of them were breaking their contracts. As a matter both of law and common sense it is all so obvious. It will not do for people to say, "We are working to rule. Therefore, we can mess everybody about up hill and down dale and collect our wages". The court had to consider whether there was any breach of contract by any of the persons concerned. It decided that there was a breach of contract by some people concerned in the so-called "work to rule".
On contempt, one may say that there should be no circumstances in which anybody engaged in industrial disputes is at risk of going to prison. It is a point of view. But what is the justification for it? If anybody else disobeys an order of the court he may be fined or, if he wants to get into prison, he may find himself there. Why should we draw any distinction in this sphere? It is not for the industrial action that a person is committed to prison; it is for disobeying the court.
Although I cannot claim to have taken as much part or spent as much time in the debates on this matter as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, I recall the debates on this point. It was pointed out that this would not be committal to


prison for a criminal offence. My hon. and learned Friend said that if anybody wanted to get into prison and was sufficiently obdurate and disobeyed enough orders, he could probably get into prison. That is true of any branch of the law. It is in no way particular to this matter. I think that is right. I want the same law for everybody.

Mr. Harry Ewing: That is a typical lawyer's argument.

Mr. Percival: It may be a typical lawyer's argument, but it is not a bad one for all that.
There are also matters concerning the operation of the Act which call for discussion. At the moment the situation is wholly artificial because nobody is making use of the registration provisions. It is a free country. People do not have to make use of those provisions. The hon. Member for Blackley was right that it is not a breach of the law not to make use of them. I do not think that anybody has said that it is a breach of the law. However, the present confrontation—and let nobody be in any doubt about who is confronting whom; the Trades Union Congress is deliberately confronting the Government, as it is entitled to do, by advising its members not to register—produces an artificial situation. Nobody can say whether that part of the Act which depends on registration will work because people are refusing to use it and see whether it has the advantages claimed. There is a lot of room for discussion here. I should like trade union leaders to be willing to talk to others—even to lawyers—about this matter. We might even be able to put their minds at rest about some of their fears concerning the Act. At all events, I agree that it is one area about which there should be more discussion.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who took such an active part in the debates, in an intervention during the speech by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said it was wrong to have a special court and that if these matters came before the ordinary courts of the land and they made orders trade unionists would recognise and obey them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have always thought that not only

should the law be the same for everybody but that it should be administered to everybody, and at the request of those who want it, in the same courts. What a pity the hon. Gentleman did not say that a long time ago. A special court was set up because it was hoped that having a special court with special procedures and with assessors appointed from a panel, without the frills of an ordinary court, would be more acceptable to the unions.
We all know that there is no question of changing any of these things now, but we ought to be discussing them with a view to getting straight in our own minds what changes we might perhaps make in due course. I think there is also room for discussion about picketing. Here again I have always thought that we should have the same law for everybody. If a person is committing a breach of the peace he should be liable to the process of law like everybody else, whether or not it is in pursuance of an industrial dispute. The same should apply to anybody committing a tortious act. But if people are doing neither they should be free to do what it is they wish to do; and it would remove a source of confusion and contention if we were to do away with special concepts like picketing.
There is also room to discuss those things that are going well. Contrary to what some hon. Gentlemen opposite have said, I adhere to the view that the processes which were adopted through the NIRC in the railways dispute saved a lot of people from a great deal of inconvenience. And it is not just inconvenience. We all have constituents who, when there is a strike like that, may well be bankrupted. They may have small businesses working in such a way that they cannot stand that kind of disruption. If someone were to say that we should try to find ways of getting such benefits without the compulsion of orders, I would have agreed with him, but let us not overlook the fact that in that instance there was far less disruption than there was in the previous major dispute.
Those who say—and I think that they include the hon. Member for Blackley—that no benefits have resulted from the Act——

Mr. Rose: I did not say that.

Mr. Percival: I am sorry if I misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman said. I hope that it will be realised that there are many people who, if asked, would say that they are pleased with the provisions about negotiating rights because they now have rights to negotiate which they might not have had before. There are many people who are pleased about the unfair dismissal provisions. For a long time unfair dismissal was one of the most frequent causes of unofficial strikes. I think it is right to say that concurrently with the introduction of this remedy and the widespread use that is being made of it, unfair dismissal has become less frequent as a cause of unofficial action.
All these things merit discussion, and I for one wish to goodness that this terrible barrier of bitterness that has been set up could be broken down so that all concerned, including the lawyers, could get together to discuss and thrash out any changes that need to be made.
Because the debate has been dealing mainly with the law, I have so far referred to a number of points of law, and I want now to conclude with a second request. I do ask everyone to recognise that all these provisions of law are there as a last resort and only as a last resort. That is true of the whole of our legal system. Right throughout our affairs there are provisions of law which affect them. There are courts to deal with disputes and differences, but how often do people come before those courts? They do so only as a last resort, and the same applies here.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to refer to a Committee of the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society whose report he said was the foundation of the ideas which later led to this Act. I had the honour of forming that committee, and I served upon it. We gave evidence to the Donovan Commission and it is correct that many of the ideas in its report were adopted and developed by the Government.
Under the heading:
How far can the law help?
the first paragraph of the report said:
We recognise that the legal framework, within which management and employees, trade unions and employers' associations must work,

is only part of the problem. In the ultimate analysis, the spirit and good intentions, the vision and the effort, the failings and inadequacies, the stupidities and fears both of management and of employees and of their representative institutions are infinitely more important than the legal framework within which they work, whatever it may be.
The final paragraph was to the same effect, recognising that industrial relations are human relations, and that reaching a solution by agreement, which must be the aim of everybody at every stage, is the all-important consideration, but tacking on to that the belief that one ought to have a sensible and up-to-date framework of law so that if agreement proves impossible there is some way of seeking to resolve disputes otherwise than by bare force.
That is how we lawyers always approach this problem—not with any desire to take it over or to invade the field, but simply from the point of view of how far the law can help to do what we all want to do. How wonderful it would be if there were a period during which people stopped knocking the lawyers and had a look at their own acts. I wonder whether those who talk about the law being an ass everask themselves what we lawyers think about them. I wonder whether they ever appreciate that we might think it a bit daft that people seem no longer to realise that before a cake can be divided it has first to be baked. Do they not sometimes think how much more sensible it would be if management and men got down together to bake more and bigger cakes before deciding how to divide them; and how much better it would be if, instead of boasting about giving the Government bloody noses, they got down to avoiding the need for conflict?
What a prize there is ready for the taking by men and management—for the country—and what a triumph for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who undoubtedly wield such influence in these circles—if we were all to do the obvious thing for a while—work together for the common good of our country and all of us in it.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I trust that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) will forgive me if I do not follow the legal argument he put forward. The same can be said


to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who also talked from the point of view of a lawyer. The difference is that at least my hon. Friend attempts to make himself conversant with the practicalities of industrial relations. I hope that many of the lawyers in the House will from this day forward also attempt to make themselves familiar with the situation in industry.
The Prime Minister said that the trade unions now recognised that they were moving towards acceptance of the Industrial Relations Act. He and I must be living in two different countries, or two different worlds, metaphorically speaking, because my understanding of the situation is entirely different. Only last Saturday I attended a meeting of shop stewards, branch secretaries and branch chairmen of the union concerned with the steel industry. Bearing in mind the statement by the British Steel Corporation that 7,500 jobs are to fall by the wayside in Scotland within the next two to three years, we can understand the feelings of those present. There was a strong expression of opinion that industrial action should be taken as a fight against the redundancies. To their great credit, the shop stewards present completely negated that point of view and were prepared to take the matter through the proper procedure, the proper negotiations. That proves conclusively what many of us on this side have said for many years, that too much is said about the alleged badness in the trade union movement and not enough about its good points.
There was talk this afternoon about the cooling-off period as it applied to the rail dispute. In view of the parroting of Conservative Members, it is worth repeating what George Meany, the President of the AFL-CIO, said about cooling-off periods on a recent visit to this country:
We never had one that led to agreement during the period.
The use of strike ballots was abandoned in the United States after a period of 10 years. Mr. Meany commented:
The results were so bad for the Government that they took the ballots out of the Taft-Hartley laws. The theory was that labour leaders wanted to have strikes but their members didn't.
That has been the Government's opinion.
Those of us who have been associated with the trade union movement for many years realised at the outset that as soon

as a Measure like the present Act went on the Statute Book we would obviously be heading for difficulties. My own industry is the construction industry, in which men work in deplorable conditions. In some cases they are working as high as 700 or 800 feet. They work in winter conditions that none of us would work in. There are shop stewards in the industry looking after the interests of their members. Anyone who thinks that trade union officials, from general secretaries downwards, will tell those lads what to do must be living in Cloud-Cuckoo Land. Those lads are doing a valuable service not only for the construction industry but also for good industrial relations. The number of disputes resolved at plant and site level day in and day out is immeasurable, but unfortunately that is the sort of thing we do not read about, though a national stoppage becomes headlines in the Press and television news.
Last week I travelled up from London overnight to attend the presentation of a safety award to one of the companies in my constituency. That is the kind of thing we all talk about, and there was quite a show at the factory, but the amount of publicity given to the event was virtually nil. But the same factory had been on strike for six weeks, finishing only two weeks earlier, and the Press and national television publicity had been astronomical. I am proud and happy to say that after the strike had gone on for four weeks both sides, the trade unions and the employers, asked me to act as mediator. As the end of a week I got both sides round the table and the men back to work. Since then, I am told production has not lagged one iota.
The point is that we do not put enough stress on communications. Where there are good communications from boardroom level right down to plant or shop floor level, there are very few disputes. Pat Lowry, Director of Industrial Relations for British Leyland—no one can tell me that he votes for Labour at a General Election—wrote in the Scotland magazine only last month:
In recent years managements have tended to the view that the task of communicating with the shop floor belongs exclusively to unions and shop stewards. That, in my view is nonsense. Unions have the right to convey their views and their reports on the progress of negotiation to their members but it is the right of management to transmit its views.


its policies and its attitudes to its employees. If managers did this more often they might be surprised at the results.
What I have found in industry, in which I have had tremendous experience, is that the lines of communication go from boardroom to shop floor level, but in some cases those in mid-management are left out entirely. They resent not being brought into the discussion and at the end of the day becoming the buffer between the boardroom and the shop floor. The salutary lesson is that they should be brought in at the outset. They should be present at all the negotiations. If we operated in that way, there is a distinct possibility that many present disputes could be avoided.
In the areas for which they are responsible, managers should be made as accountable for their industrial relations as for other aspects of the business. It is not the job of personnel and industrial relations men. They are there to counsel, guide, and assist line managers, and to relieve them of the on-going burden of negotiations.
One might ask what the unions are now doing about training. The Trade Union Council itself has accelerated the training of its officials, and because of the many amalgamations that have taken place and are taking place throughout the whole trade union world many causes of disputes in the past do not now arise. In such a situation, and with that sort of mood, I counsel the Government to put the present Industrial Relations Act on ice. The trade unions and managements should be given a period in which to start afresh and really get down to business.
Tomorrow, when the Prime Minister meets the TUC General Council representatives at 10, Downing Street, I am sure that they will leave him in no doubt about many of the things of which they told him from 1970 onwards and which he now chooses to accept as Government legislation. One of these is regional policies. It ill becomes the Prime Minister to say that the trade unions are pleased with the Government's regional policies. It is only because of the efforts of the trade unions and the Opposition that the Government changed course, and they must therefore concede that they at the outset were the perpetrators of many of the disputes in British industry.
Conciliation is of vital importance. I have already referred to the meeting with the TUC, but in a week or so the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment will be meeting the CBI. The TUC and the CBI can strike a decisive blow for good industrial relations. Once the courts enter into industrial negotiations or relations we are heading for disaster because ultimately, whether we like it or not, it means that union members go to gaol for contempt of court. If we have that prospect at the end of the road, we shall find ourselves in serious difficulties.
I therefore ask the Government to put the Act in an icebox. Let them put it right out of the way. We on this side are very much concerned with good industrial relations, and subscribe to the view that industrial relations are human relations. We want peace in industry. We want the best possible deal for our members. We want to ensure that our members are not left by the wayside in any Government policies. But we do not believe that such an Act as this is the right way to solve the industrial relations problem.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) spoke with a manifest sincerity and a considerable good sense on the subject of our debate. I am sure that the House will agree that in doing so he added further scorn and shame to the appalling speech of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, whose groping round for Press cuttings marked a nadir of his career.
I do not want to follow that line. I do not even want to follow our legal friends in a detailed analysis of the Industrial Relations Act. I simply pick up the last point made by the hon. Member for Bothwell and say that I cannot agree with him in his belief that the Act should be put on ice. I recognise the philosophy that lay behind his remarks, but it seems to me quite evident that the Act is at the very least as yet unproven, and that if we study it closely we shall find clear and manifest benefits flowing from it. It must be looked at as a whole and if at the moment there are some awkward things in it, I have no doubt that they can be put right as time


goes on. Some parts may need amending, but the great bulk of the Act is sound.
Nor is it right to say that we are for the first time bringing the courts into industrial relations. We know that there is a long history of law governing the framework of industrial relations, and what the Act does is to revise, amend and update the law, but not to produce something completely new in that respect.
I do not wish to talk about the Act in particular because it is important to show that it is only one ingredient in the broad picture of industrial relations, and I am sure that we need other approaches and other initiatives in tackling the problem of industrial relations cum inflation. We all know that the two are very closely interlinked, and that the country's major economic problem cannot be properly examined by looking only at one ingredient.
What is happening at the moment? Essentially, what is happening is that many people are asking for more. It seemed to me that The Times on 16th June, in a leader on inflation, summed up our predicament very well. It said:
People talk very freely about the cost of inflation, about the way in which they have to pay more for their meat or bread or houses. People do not talk so freely about the way in which they personally benefit from inflation, though inflation would not continue if very powerful groups in our society did not benefit from it.
That takes us to what in some ways is the heart of the problem. Many groups of people are demanding more out of the economy. In particular, in the context of this debate, it is reasonable to point out that the unions and those they represent are demanding a bigger share of the cake or bigger earnings—bigger real wealth—than they have had in the past. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the Exchequer said on Thursday, that over the past year real earnings have increased by 5 per cent. more than the cost of living. In other words, there is clearly accruing to the unions some real benefit from these wage increases.
However, the fact remains that if the unions and other groups go on pressing this policy we are bound to run into ever-increasingly serious trouble. It is also true—this is something which we must never forget—that those who

depend on the fruits of industry, such as the disabled, have a right to ask for more. They are increasingly asking for more, but they suffer from being, in comparison with other groups in society, the weaker group. A social or economic policy which does not face up to this problem, and allows the more powerful groups to push ahead without any consideration for the less powerful, will not solve our problems.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) talked about the division between the haves and the have-nots in terms of bosses or management on one side and men on the other. That is a completely outmoded picture. The have-nots in society today are the dependants. They are not the people on either side of the men and management conflict.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raison: I think not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because of time.
Given that there are these various groups in society all pressing for more, there is clearly only one answer which can satisfy their needs, and that is greater growth. I have no doubt that our policies must continue to go all out for greater growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been right to adhere to his 5 per cent. target. It would be tragic if we should be forced off that sort of policy. On the other hand, we have to recognise that if inflation continues to gallop ahead in an ever-increasingly uncontrolled way, which I fear may be the position in future, although there has been an improvement in the last few months, it will check the growth which we need to sustain our society.
One of the things we have to do to make sure that growth can continue is to concentrate ever harder on the broader picture of industrial relations. In particular, we need to build up understanding or rapport between the Government and the unions. For that reason I am so pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is meeting the unions tomorrow. I am sure that what will be initiated tomorrow will lead to a series of helpful discussions. There is in the trade union movement a great deal of


good will which sometimes is underestimated, but which was manifest in the speech of the hon. Member for Bothwell.
I turn now to some of the topics which I hope will crop up in the discussions to take place between my right hon. Friend and the unions. There can be no question of putting the Industrial Relations Act on ice. That is an unrealistic and foolish proposition. However, there are points on which constructive discussion can take place and can be of real value. Here, however, one must issue a caveat. We must remember that the trade union leadership nowadays cannot always deliver all the goods we would like it to deliver. One respect in which the Donovan Report showed a great deal of wisdom was in its view that power lies today to a very great extent on the shop floor. Whatever we may think about shop stewards, their power is a fact of life and a great many crucial negotiations which will shape industrial relations for the future will be day-by-day shop floor negotiations between managements and workers' representatives. There is no point in deluding ourselves that the trade union leadership has the power simply to wave a magic wand so that everything it says will be automatically followed by its supporters.
One must add that management now must more and more recognise that the place where good industrial relations start and end is the shop floor, rather than at the somewhat grandiose sessions of the CBI and the TUC and so on. Nevertheless, there are major topics which should be talked about at the forthcoming meetings, and I hope that they will be dealt with. I hope in particular that they will be dealt with in an attitude of mind which accepts that our economy will not solve these problems unless it manages to be both fair and dynamic at the same time. There can, of course, be a conflict between these two objectives, and somehow or other it is the business of our leaders to try to make sure that neither submerges the other.
A topic which I hope will feature prominently is that of low wages. My right hon. Friend had some interesting things to say about this today. He pointed out that it was not on the Government

side that there was reluctance to talk about it, but that the difficulty has been to get some sort of agreement from the unions as to what they want. I do not deride the unions for this because it is a difficult problem. One has only to read the report of the Prices and Incomes Board on the subject a year or two back to see how great and complex the difficulties are. It was a very good and interesting report. This is a subject with which we must press ahead, with the simple objective of trying to find ways of allowing the wages of the very lowest paid to rise so that they get up, at the very least, to a decent level.
The first reason for this is that people who are badly paid should have every reason to hope that they will become well paid. We should, secondly, get people away from selective benefits, means testing and so on. The Prices and Incomes Board pointed out quite reasonably that anyone in a full-time job should derive enough money to pay for the essentials of life without having to call on selective benefits. The Government have been right to introduce their measures such as the Family Income Supplement, but it is right to regard these as a temporary expedient. They were introduced to tackle a short-term problem. In the long term, I hope that we can see all full-time employees in a position in which they can essentially pay for themselves, with help concentrated perhaps on family allowances, on those who have several children to look after.
Above all, I think it necessary to get into a situation where there is real incentive to work. There is a lot of evidence that, for people on the lower end of the earnings scale, the advantages of being in full-time employment as opposed to being unemployed are pretty inconsiderable. We have heard about the "poverty surtax". I think that there is something in the argument that it is right that we should aim at raising wages at the lower end of the scale. This means facing the problem of differentials and this presumably is what the discussions will be about. It will require a good deal of good will to make headway, but it must be done.
The second topic which I hope will be discussed is that of unemployment. The last two monthly figures have shown a welcome and almost spectacular drop


in the figures, but they are still far too high and we cannot be sure that this rate of fall will continue for very long. Some of my hon. Friends and I recently produced a pamphlet called "Prospect for employment", which looks at the whole problem. We have tried to argue the long-term objectives and problems. One of our suggestions is that the amount of time to be spent in manufacturing employment of the traditional sort is likely by any standard to be substantially less in the future than in the past. Even if the economy is going full tilt, there will not be the number of jobs in productive industry—perhaps even also in the service industries—that there has been in the past. It is right that we should face this possibility. It is difficult, because employment projections are peculiarly difficult to arrive at. I believe that there is a long-term trend here, and that it is time we talked a little harder about what to do.
The first thing that we talked about was the need to examine more carefully the employment possibilities in the social services, because that seems to be one area in which real growth is taking place and in which it is capable of taking place to a greater extent in the future. I hope that the Government and those who are concerned with this matter will consider that area carefully, in order to make sure that we have the right analysis in terms of the employment that will be required, and to direct appropriate public resources to finding and financing the jobs, and making sure that people are available for them.
I would much rather spend more public money in bringing the social services up to strength than in Measures such as the Industry Bill. It seems to me to meet a clearly expressed and evident need, and that sort of approach has much to be said for it, rather than offering vague and hypothetical subsidies which might easily fail to produce the job results that are intended.
It follows from what I have said that I think that the way to tackle the employment problem also entails not subsidising jobs simply to keep them in being. It would be disastrous if we were to regard productive industry as a branch of the social services. There

are areas in which we can hope to have great increases in employment in the future, but to give help to areas that depend on North Sea oil and North Sea gas to keep them in being, and to the shipyards, which manifestly will not operate efficiently in the future, does no long-term good to our economy.
Lastly, we must begin seriously to consider the question of the length of the working life, the possibility of voluntary early retirement, the length of the working week and working year, and so on. In other words, it is important to begin to argue rather more effectively about the long-term employment situation, and it is basically right to regard meaningful discussions about these matters as part of the necessary pattern for achieving a better atmosphere in industrial relations.
We must also consider very carefully—and we must involve the unions in this—the problems of our dependants, particularly the old people who, time and again, are left behind in inflationary pressures. Trade union leaders, like other sections of the community, are always ready to nod in this direction, and to say that we must do this, but even the most ardent supporter of the trade union movement would not claim that it has so far managed to be very constructive in this matter. This is an area in which talks and negotiations should develop much more.
We must also develop a more profound understanding of the nature of life at work. The hon. Member for Bothwell gave us a glimpse into this. There is no doubt that industrial and office life have about them features of stress, strain and boredom. If we have a national duty, it is to recognise this situation and to try to find ways of remedying it. We have a duty to recognise that more and more educated and able people are coming into the work force, and they will not be prepared indefinitely to go on doing boring jobs that might have satisfied people in the past. We need to raise our standards in this respect, and the incorporation of this question in future discussions is highly desirable.
We must also consider the pattern of conciliation that is necessary in the future. Undoubtedly a new situation is arising. Mr. Aubrey Jones, in an article in the


Observer yesterday, hit the nail on the head when he asked:
Is there some method of marrying the newer interest of government with the older concept of conciliation?
How do we work into wage negotiations in the future some idea of national intrest as well as simply trying to strike a balance between the demands of employers and employees? That is something that we need to think about very hard.
I do not believe that all these problems will be solved overnight, or even to show what is in fact the case—that the Conservative Party is deeply concerned to see the development of an improvement in the climate of industrial relations. I do not think that it is a particularly good climate at the moment and it is vital that it should be improved, but I am sure that the approach of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the actions that he is taking and is to take, and those of his colleagues, are calculated to bring about a system in which we shall have industrial relations that are friendly and that will provide a chance for everybody to derive satisfaction from his work without falling back into that slackness which was so often the weakness in the past. The Government are pointing their noses in the right direction, and for that reason I support them in this policy.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown: As, regrettably, only a short time is left for me in the debate, I do not intend to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in great detail. Having sat through the debate, I am saddened by the Government's attitude. The paucity of their case has been clearly demonstrated. They have made a transparently synthetic attempt to justify that attitude, and at times they have come close to showing despair.
The Government seem to be insensitive to the fact that both sides of industry deplore the Industrial Relations Act. Those who have good industrial relations intend to ignore it completely, and only those who are the bad employers and the bad employees will be able to use it. We have already seen several examples to show that that will be the pattern in

industry so long as the Act remains on the Statute Book.
The Government must realise that in industry there is need for mutual trust not only between management and worker, but between industry and Government. It is in this area that the Government have forfeited any right to any sort of trust which they may have had. Throughout the period 1965 to 1970, hon. Gentlemen opposite spent their time in opposition doing everything they could to destroy any form of trust between the Labour Government and industry, and they are now reaping the benefit of having sown those seeds of destruction.
The House will recall that during those years the Labour Government attempted to create a climate in industry of productivity, prices, and incomes in which everyone in industry would be aware that there was a third important partner in negotiations, and that partner was the national interest. We said that the community should be taken in account, and that was the purpose of the Declaration of Intent and everything that went with it.
But while we were saying that the national interest must be taken into account, the right hon. Gentleman who is now Lord President of the Council was saying
One of the hallmarks of freedom is surely the right of people to determine their own earnings without State intervention or direction…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968: Vol. 765, c. 318.]
He was arguing that there should be no dictation by the Government, that all wage settlements were to be a matter of negotiation between trade unions and employers alone. That was the tenor of the argument of hon. Members opposite in those days. For them now to argue that the trade union movement should be sensitive to the wider needs of the national interest is absurd.
The Amendment talks about
a framework, within the law…".
If it needs a framework, within the law in terms of negotiations and industrial relations, why not for safety? I could support the Amendment if two words were changed—"industrial safety" in the second line instead of "industrial relations" and "industrial accidents" at the


end of the last line in place of "industrial disputes". That would read perfectly.
The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), whom I describe as a wicked man, deliberately and wilfully talked out a Bill when the House had decided that it wanted it, when the Committee had decided it wanted it, when it had passed all of its stages. He wickedly turned up at 4 o'clock on only one Friday—I have not seen him since and I doubt whether I will see him again—and talked out the Bill.
The House had said that it wanted the Bill to reduce accidents in industry and to save the lives of people. He is the man who did this, and it is disgraceful even to listen to him putting his views on industrial relations. Industry does not think very much of him, on either side, for having talked out a Bill which meant so much.
People will respond only if they can see that there is fair play and justice, that they are having their share of the cake, that their ideas and thoughts are being considered too. Management must understand that there needs to be a far greater attempt to understand the needs and aspirations of workers. We must have ways of sharing responsibilities. There is no point in trying to superimpose a legal framework of this nature upon industry if there is no understanding within industry about the relationship which there should be between management and workers. Any such idea will be abortive until industry can ensure that its workers have a real stake in the industry, that they are part of an enterprise and can be seen as such.
This needs a great deal of re-thinking by industry and Government. The Government put forward an illusive argument that if only they can introduce this industrial law in some way harmony and good relations will arise there from. I would turn it the other way and say that unless the Government are prepared to make it abundantly clear that the interests of the workers are as important as the interests of any other part of industry there will not be this harmony with both sides working together, pulling in the same direction on the same rope. Unless this can be achieved the country will suffer badly, and I urge the Government not to place their reliance upon the Act but

instead to understand the needs of industry so that our community can survive.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I begin by saying how much I agree with the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) who referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts). My hon. Friend was objecting to one of the most irritating bits of nonsense that kept cropping up, not only from the hon. Member but from other speakers opposite, whereby they tried to perpetuate the hoary myth that somehow or other there is a conflict in these discussions between the point of view of trade unionists and the point of view of the general public.
Associated with that is the complementary myth that because we on this side support a trade union point of view we are in some way speaking against the public interest. I speak as a trade unionist, and I am proud to do so. The Motion we have moved today is as much in line with the general public interest as any Motion ever moved by any part in this House. The interests of the whole public—workers, management, professional classes, and consumers—are damaged when the state of industrial relations becomes as bad as it has become under the present Government in the last two years. The losses to national production when the rate of time lost in industrial disputes is four times as much as it was under the Labour Government are felt by the whole public. When the law is brought into disrepute by forcing through a gagged Parliament a bad law of this kind, the whole public interest suffers. When the nation is put in danger as it has been by the experience of the working of the Act in the last four months, the whole public interest suffers
So we want to be judged in this debate—and we want the country to judge between the arguments of both sides—not according to the partial interests of any part of the community but in terms of the interests of the whole public.
I wish to begin by discussing the experience of the last four months, with particular reference to the two major questions of the rail situation and the docks situation, both of which have been referred to several times in the debate. There could not have been two better set


pieces of the folly of the Industrial Relations Act. They are different set pieces: the rail dispute illustrating the folly of the Government's involvement through their emergency powers in the Act, the docks dispute illustrating the folly of the action which could be taken under the Act by people other than the Government, representing between them the total folly of the legislation.
I want to put three propositions on the rail dispute. I should have thought that the first was quite unexceptionable if it had not been for the remarks of the Prime Minister. I should have thought that no one would need to argue that the use of the Government's powers under Sections 138 and 141 of the Industrial Relations Act had done nothing to help to solve the rail dispute. I should have thought that that was obvious. But apparently it is not obvious to the Prime Minister. In what I thought was one of the weakest arguments of a particularly weakly argued speech, he suggested that there were gains for the community in the fact that the Government used the procedures of those two Sections and therefore that the industrial action was not taking place in most of the period between early April and early June, between the Jarratt award and the final settlement.
If the Prime Minister is assuming that during that period of two months the alternative to what happened would have been a situation in which there was no settlement but the industrial action would have continued through those two months, he is right. But he knows, and surely everyone knows, that that was not the alternative. The settlement in early June was almost exactly the same as, but if anything a little higher than, the settlement available to the parties in early April, and nothing which happened in those two months contributed to the solution of the dispute. But the damage done by those two months is damage which the Prime Minister apparently is not able to recognise—damage to the finances of British Rail, damage to the morale of the British Rail staff, damage to the interests of the travelling public and damage to future industrial relations in this important industry, because the two sides must live with each other now that it is

all over and the Government have withdrawn from the scene.
All that could have been avoided by a settlement in early April which was bound to be a little higher than the Jarratt award and a little lower than the figure for which the unions were asking. There was a very narrow gap between them in early April. The settlement had to be made within that gap, and it was made after two months in which the Government used the various gimmicks available to them to no purpose whatever.

The Prime Minister: I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to repeat this myth, he can give evidence for the statement he is now so freely making that this settlement was available, because there is no evidence published of any kind. The General Secretary of the TUC never claimed it was so. The trade unions never said it was so themselves. Therefore let the right hon. Gentleman substantiate in detail this claim which he is now making.

Mr. Prentice: The evidence available to me at that time—and I talked to the General Secretary of the TUC and I talked to the leaders of the unions and I talked to the Chairman of British Rail—suggested to me from all those sources that a settlement had to be within that bracket and could be within that bracket. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that during the few hours of discussion which took place during the cooling-off period—there were only three hours of discussion—an offer was made by Sir Sidney Greene to halve the difference between the two sides and on that basis the settlement would have been the same as it would have been in April.

The Prime Minister: This offer was not made by the trade unions in the negotiations. It was mentioned by Sir Sidney Greene in a broadcast, but not supported by the other unions and it was never substantiated.

Mr. Prentice: The solution was suggested in those talks but was not followed up by British Rail or by the Government or anyone else.
I also remind the Prime Minister that Vic Feather, just before the cooling-off period was applied for, said, "Give me 24 hours and I shall try to settle it" and,


clearly, in view of what happened afterwards, he could have done so. It would have represented a settlement on the basis which could have been obtained two months earlier.
I wanted to go on to suggest that, quite apart from not serving the public interest, the Government's manoeuvres during those two months did not even suit the Government's interest and that this was just another chapter in their policy. They looked back nostalgically, for another victory such as they got over the postmen, and they were smarting from what had happened in the 1922 Committee over what was considered there to be their surrender to the miners, and so they decided to take on the railwaymen. The effect of their manoeuvres in the two months did not even enable them to do that, because again the settlement at the end was of the same order—or a bit higher—as it could have been in April. The mood of the railwaymen in June was more determined and was hardened, and they would have been more ready in larger numbers to go on with a long struggle in June than some were in April.
I am bound to return, upon the rail dispute, to one issue which has cropped up in this debate and during the discussions over recent weeks, that the whole episode calls in question not only the judgment of Ministers but the good faith of Ministers, and I am bound to return to the question of evidence the Government had when they applied to the court first for the cooling-off period and secondly for the ballot.
I draw attention, as 1 did earlier in an intervention, to the wording of the Act, Section 138. The Government had to satisfy the court that in their view a cooling-off period would be conducive to the start of negotiations, conciliation, or arbitration. In the cooling-off period there were no negotiations except for a three-hour meeting. There was no conciliation. There was no arbitration. There was no move by the Government to bring about any of those things, and I put it to the House, therefore, that there was no evidence, when the Government wanted to create a cooling-off period, that it would be conducive to a settlement by any of those methods.
Similarly when the Government applied for the ballot under Section 141 they had to show
reasons for doubting whether the workers who are taking part or are expected to take part in the strike or other industrial action are or would be taking part in it in accordance with their wishes…".
I put it to the House that there were no reasons. In reply to my intervention earlier the Prime Minister said the Secretary of State had given reasons. I should like to know when, because I believe that I have been in the House every time the Secretary of State has answered Questions or made statements on this subject. Inevitably, there have been many Questions and many statements, but there have been no reasons. I can rememeber the occasion when he said he had reasons, but I cannot remember him saying what those reasons were. Nor did the Prime Minister when he was questioned on this. Both of them fudged.
The Secretary of State has another opportunity tonight to spell out those reasons. If he does not, people will be bound to conclude that this is one of the worst lapses of integrity even of this Government. In addition to all the other reasons for getting rid of the Act, there is the reason that it puts temptation into the path of the Government to depart from the standards of integrity which Ministers should follow.
The docks dispute gives us a different illustration of the folly of this Act. For some weeks the country has been in a critical situation; we have been under notice of an official dock strike. On two occasions the dock delegate conference has postponed the strike notice to allow the leaders of the union to continue to negotiate on the matters in dispute. Progress has been made and agreement has been reached on fallback pay, severance pay and holidays. On the cruicial question of employment, with particular reference to containerisation, we still do not know whether we shall have a dock strike. The committee, under the joint chairmanship of Jack Jones and Lord Aldington, has been at work on this. I am sure all hon. and right hon. Members hope that they succeed in their efforts, and would advise the dockers to look to these negotiations to solve their problems and not go ahead with any action that is not authorised by the national dock delegate conference.
The background to the dispute, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), is of growing unemployment in the docks, over one-third of the jobs being lost in the last seven years, many in areas of high unemployment. It is clear that the constructive efforts of both sides in the dispute and of the Secretary of State and his Department have very nearly been completely sabotaged by the effect of the Act. The Prime Minister said that the fact that it was being brought into the open and that the Jones-Aldington Committee had been formed was somehow due to the operation of the Act. How he works that out, I do not know. That is twisting the truth to an incredible extent. The problems were there and the two sides were trying to solve them. The Act is irrelevant to these problems, and the Act has nearly destroyed, and may still destroy, the efforts of both sides to bring the dispute to a satisfactory solution.
The Act is so drawn that any tin-pot employer, like Heatons, or any group of workers anxious for their jobs, such as those at Chobham, or any individual, can take a union or a group of workers to court and escalate a local situation into a national crisis that can bring an industry to a standstill. That is the essence of the folly of the Act.
In putting this point to the Government I am speaking directly to the Motion. If they hint or imply tomorrow to the TUC that they will go easy on part of the Act and put the emergency procedures into cold storage, that will not be enough. If they ask the CBI and the Employers' Federation to advise their members to do the same, that still will not be enough. As long as the Act remains on the Statute Book some people somewhere will be crazy enough to use it, and the consequences of their using it in the wrong circumstances could be to bring a great national industry and the economy of the country to a standstill, as might have happened a fortnight ago but for the surprise intervention of the good fairy in the shape of the Official Solicitor.

Mr. Adam Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that 60 members of the Transport and General

Workers Union were crazy to use the Act to safeguard their employment?

Mr. Prentice: One can understand that, with the present situation of over 800,000 unemployed, any group of workers are desperate to protect their jobs and will seek any remedy open to them to protect their jobs. When I see some hon. Members opposite laughing at the fact that two groups of workers were in conflict over the Chobham Farm issue, I must remind them that that conflict is a direct result of this country having over 800,000 unemployed. But I still think that those workers would have been wiser to use other methods. I still think that use of the court has not been helpful to them. I believe that the talks held in the Transport and General Workers Union between representatives of the dock group and the road commercial group under the chairmanship of Mr. Harry Urwin are the kind of effort which will solve problems of this kind. I only wish that the employers had got together on a similar basis.

The Prime Minister: As the union efforts failed, will the right hon. Gentleman say what other remedy was open to the 60 men who objected to being forced out of their job?

Mr. Prentice: The long-term remedy is full employment. The short-term remedy, given the level of unemployment which now exists, is further negotiation or access to a conciliator. If we had in operation a conciliation and arbitration service—and I hope the Prime Minister will discuss this matter constructively with the TUC—and if there were a district officer who could be called into a situation like Chobham Farm, I feel that in this way our difficulties could be sorted out. In a country of this size and complexity, there will always be arguments of this kind. The essential thing is to see that they are solved by some procedure of that sort.
A great deal of discussion has taken place on the questions of inflation and prices and incomes. Inevitably in discussing industrial relations the arguments get interwoven with arguments about prices and incomes policy—and sometimes they become too interwoven. I do not want to seek to dodge the problems of an incomes policy, but I feel that we need to see it in perspective.
First, incomes are only one factor in the whole inflationary process. There are other factors which clearly need to be taken into account, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) illustrated this matter is his speech. We must also bear in mind that the impact of trade union wage demands is only one of the influences on the rise of incomes. Over half the employed people in this country do not belong to a union at all. Then there are those who belong to a union but whose wage and salary increases are decided by a process that has nothing to do with the trade union. People get individual rises by promotion, or by being given extra responsibilities or because an employer is anxious to retain the individual concerned.
All kinds of circumstances affect the wage demands, and the wage demands of a trade union are one influence among many others. Many middle-class people who pontificate about irresponsible wage demands by trade unions would do well to sit down and tot up on a bit of paper the change in their own incomes over the past four or five years consistent with their own level of productivity before they talk about demands by other people.
We believe that a voluntary incomes policy operated by the unions is a sensible part of a general strategy against inflation. I personally believe in this as a trade unionist of many years, and indeed I have often spoken in these terms at trade union conferences in the past. I believe in such a policy not only because it can be used against inflation but also because it can also be used as a means of giving priority to the lower paid. If the higher paid in industry were prepared to exercise restraint in favour of the lower paid, I feel that this would be in the best traditions of working class solidarity and it is something that we ought to support.
Therefore, we on this side can say to the trade union movement that in any future attempt to deal with inflation the trade unions cannot stand aside from a constructive attitude. I do not think that the majority of trade unionists want to stand aside. The Government have forfeited any moral right to make that appeal to the trade unions. The point about inflation under this Government is not merely that the Government have failed

to deal with it. Governments of all parties all over the world have failed to deal successfully with inflation. The charge against this Government is that they have deliberately pursued policies that have made inflation worse. I need only mention VAT——
The Prime Minister: It has not come into effect yet.

Mr. Prentice: —council house rent increases, food levies, Health Service charges, and higher school meal charges, every one of which was a deliberate decision by the Government resulting in higher prices.
The Prime Minister says that VAT has not happened yet. When we talk about these things we are not talking merely about what has happened in the last two years. We are talking about price increases that are in the pipeline. VAT has not happened yet. Council rents have not risen yet under the Housing Finance Bill. Food levies have gone up to some extent, but will rise more next year. In other words, the Government are committed now to future policies that will send the cost of living up further and give further twists to the inflationary spiral. Only by reversing those policies have hon. Members opposite any more right to ask the trade unions to try to operate an incomes policy in a way which will lead to greater restraint.
The Prime Minister made a great deal of the provisions for dealing with appeals against unfair dismissals. It is not surprising when so much is going wrong with the Industrial Relations Act that the Prime Minister should devote part of his speech to stressing a part of the Act which is fairly useful and constructive.
No hon. Member opposite should claim that this is a policy which they have introduced and which we would not have introduced. Provisions for appeals against unfair dismissals were in the Bill which fell at the time of the General Election but which would have become law if a Labour Government had been returned. This is one part of the Industrial Relations Act which we shall keep when we repeal most of the Act—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister says this is a change of view. Will he stop sneering from a sedentary position. If he says that it is a change of view, let him say what it is a


change of view from. The Prime Minister has become very childish. I repeat that our Bill had provisions for appeals against unfair dismissals. We shall keep those provisions which are in this Act and we shall improve them.
Even the Prime Minister may recall that during the debates on the Industrial Relations Bill we on this side maintained that the dismissed worker should have a right to reinstatement if he so chose and not merely the compensation available to him under the terms of the Act.
I hope that the Prime Minister will take the conciliation and arbitration service seriously when he meets the TUC. Clearly the CBI takes this service seriously and wants something along these lines. [Interruption.] I am asked what our constructive proposals are. I have been discussing these with the TUC for many months. If the Government would show some signs that they are catching up with our thinking on this we should be only too glad to assist them to put through legislation to implement it.
It is urgently necessary in the public interest that there should be a conciliation and arbitration service which can be genuinely regarded as independent on both sides of industry. It will not be regarded as independent if Ministers insist on a system by which the arbitrator is to be part of Government policy for fighting inflation. If the Government try to lean on the arbitrator, if they try directly or indirectly to hobble him in some way so as to control the settlements he can make, the service will not be successful in fighting inflation. Indeed, it will often lead to more inflation. The only effect will be to destroy confidence in the arbitration system as they have destroyed confidence in existing forms of arbitration.
I turn to the important part of our Motion in which we refer to the "general reputation of the law". On this point the Prime Minister's speech reached a degree of impudence which was remarkable even by his standards when he said that we were trying to undermine the High Court by our criticism of the Industrial Relations Act. That is not merely untrue but a complete reversal of the truth.
If I need to lay it on the line again, we have said all along that everyone in

this country should obey the law and, therefore, carry out the decisions of the courts. Therefore, we thought the rail unions were right to call off their industrial action when the court ordered them to do so. We said that publicly. Whether it was reasonable or not, it was a decision of the court and we said they should obey it. Similarly, the dockers' union was right to pay the £55,000 into court. However, the leaders of the picketers at Chobham Farm were wrong to disobey the order to go to the court.
We have upheld the need to keep the law at every point, but we are bound to point out that if a law is introduced which flies in the face not only of common sense judgment but of both informed and general public opinion, people will rebel against it. Therefore, we damage the whole fabric of the law of this country at a time when we are anxious about the rising crime rate, what is happening in Ulster, and various trends in our society, if we show lack of respect for the law. This is the worst moment in time to introduce a law which will have that kind of effect. It is the Government who have undermined respect for the law, not those of us on this side who have been careful to say that the law should be obeyed. However, it is a bad law and it should go at the earliest possible moment.
Finally, but briefly, I should like to mention two other points. First, there has not been as much discussion as we think on the central problem of full employment. I believe that any serious discussion about industrial relations in our time ought to take account of the level of employment as one of the key factors. We have over 800,000 unemployed. The victims are not only the unemployed and their families but the large numbers of people in industry who are afraid that it will be their turn next. This fear has a stultifying effect on industrial relations. We live in a time when technological change is presenting new opportunities which we can grasp only if fear is taken out of this situation. Therefore, any constructive industrial relations policy must include full employment strategy at its heart.
Secondly, I wish we could debate these matters in an atmosphere freer of crisis than that in which we have discussed them today. Industrial relations are not


only about the avoidance of strikes or of wage inflation but about the human being at work. Industrial relations are concerned with the dignity and job satisfaction of the individual at work. The starting point ought to be to look at a boy or a girl in one of our constituencies leaving school now, entering industry with perhaps 50 years working life ahead of him or her, and asking, what can the State do to back up progressive employers and trade unions by creating conditions which will lead to a better working life for the individual? Therefore, we should be discussing training and job satisfaction, the employment service, manpower planning, industrial democracy, and themes of that kind.
We do not blame the Government because they have not solved all the crises in industrial relations. Crises exist in every industrial country in the world. We blame the Government for pursuing a course of action which has made these industrial relations worse. They have created a situation in which industrial relations in Britain are worse than at any time since the twenties, in which unemployment is worse than at any time since the thirties and in which inflation is running ahead of inflation in other industrial countries which are competing with us in world markets. This is a recipe for disaster, and it can be changed only by a new Government who are prepared to put the public interest ahead of the outworn mythology of the Tory Party.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): We have had a debate characterised by some constructive suggestions from my hon. Friends and from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). I am not sure how far I could go with some of the detailed remedies which he proposed, but I think that the objective of greater participation which he set out, and to which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred, is very much part of the objectives of the Act and the Code of Practice which goes with it.
From hon. Gentlemen opposite the suggestions have, on the whole, been more negative and have concentrated on the demand that the Act should be repealed.

or at least put on ice. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) added two more. He wanted to make sure that the Government would discuss ways and means of achieving independent conciliation with the TUC and CBI. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, that is already being done. The hon. Gentleman also wanted the Government to take action on improving safety, health and welfare. I have announced to the House that the Robens Report will soon be published, so that the Government are moving on both fronts suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in a characteristic speech, took rather too literally the classic advice which is given to debaters, "If you have not a case abuse the other chap's lawyer", in an ill-founded attack on the Solicitor-General.
The Opposition alleged that the Industrial Relations Act has caused
grave injuries to good industrial relations and the general reputation of the law
They rely heavily on the way in which the National Industrial Relations Court is being brought into two disputes, and on the application of the Act to the docks, and I shall have something to say about both.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North made the most astonishing and inaccurate assessment of what happened. He said that the use of the Government's powers did nothing to help. Admittedly they did not succeed in bringing an early settlement, but they did succeed in their primary purpose of making it plain that when industrial action is taken it is taken only as a matter of last resort, and with the full support of all those concerned. One can say that the Industrial Relations Act failed only if one believes it to be an Act designed to prevent industrial action from being taken by the unions, or if one believes that it really is a union-bashing Act.
The argument was based on a belief that a settlement was available earlier, and that is not true. The offer to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was a suggestion put forward in a broadcast, I think, and it was withdrawn. It was made plain tome at my last meeting with the board and the union that nothing would satisfy the demands of the union except


the full 14 per cent. at which the claim had stood ever since I first came into the dispute. It is true that earlier I saw Mr. Feather after the TUC had put out a statement saying that it thought it was possible to negotiate on the Jarratt award. I was unable to discover whether that meant that there was a compromise available or that the full settlement would have to be made. There was no possibility of discovering that.
We did not seek a confrontation. I say what I have said before, that the Act was properly used to postpone industrial action for a cooling-off period. Opposition Members have said that the cooling-off period was not used. It was not used in part at least because the unions indicated in that period that they were not willing to move from the position from which they started. They made that plain to the board and later to me when I brought the board and unions together to talk.
The Act does not say that when the Secretary of State applies for a ballot it must appear to him that the workers concerned are opposed to taking part in industrial action, nor do I have to give evidence either to the court or the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite."] My good faith can be challenged—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but the court made it plain that in this instance there was no question of that. I had to indicate that I had legitimate grounds for doubting the attitude of the work people—[HON. MEMBERS: "What were they?"]—I repeat the reasons I gave to the House earlier. All my contacts during the negotiations led me to believe what many people in the unions believed, that the Jarratt award would be accepted. It was rejected out of hand, and the union executives refused to negotiate on it. Although a variation was put up by the board, there was no question of its being explained to the work people, nor was there any possibility of their being able to discover the details.
There were more general considerations. It was entirely legitimate to doubt how far the unions had carried out any comprehensive or systematic consultation with their members about the various offers. Indeed, when Mr. Feather came to see me it was plain that he was uncertain about what the union executives

thought about the various offers then being discussed. There had been no opportunity for the railwaymen fully to understand and consider them. In particular, on 4th May, when the board made its offer modifying the Jarratt award so that the higher rates which the award proposed from 1st January next year were brought forward, the offer was rejected by the union executives virtually on the spot, with no possibility of consultation or reference to the members.
It was only after the ballot, when the unions were actually confronted with industrial action, that there was any real sign of willingness by them to compromise. It was then that the settlement was eventually achieved. As I have said before, I am grateful to Mr. Victor Feather for his help in achieving it.
The arguments we have heard today ignore entirely that the problems of industrial relations, including relations between unions and different sections of the same union, were not created by the Act. They were there anyway, and needed to be seen and dealt with. That was attempted by the Labour Government when they made an abortive attempt to deal with the problem, based on the ill-fated "In Place of Strife". Their failure led to worsening industrial relations. So far from doing injury, the Industrial Relations Act and the National Industrial Relations Court have helped and are helping in the sort of case which was identified in "In Place of Strife" but with which the Labour Party, when in Government, failed to deal.
"In Place of Strife" said that there were considerable problems connected with the recognition of white-collar workers—[Interruption.] The National Union of Bank Employees has achieved recognition from the National Bank of Pakistan and the United Dominions Trust—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which had previously been refused. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may think it unimportant——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was listened to fairly quietly.

Mr. Macmillan: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may think it nothing that white-collar workers who had been seeking recognition for a long time have achieved an improvement through the


Industrial Relations Court. I do not, nor do those workers. They regard it as important that it should be so. And they regard it as important that the Act has helped in the settlement of inter-union disputes, as it did in the case of C. A. Parsons, and in achieving what "In Place of Strife" identified but failed to do anything about. As to procedural agreements, in cases where there have been for a long time strained relations between unions and firms an application to the court has produced new procedural agreements and an arrangement satisfactory to the unions.
The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) made a good deal of rather irrelevant fun at the expense of the Registrar-General, but it is important to note that unions are achieving recognition through the Industrial Relations Act. Whatever members of the Opposition may say, the Act has also succeeded in preventing industrial action in at least one case.
The docks were the other example upon which the Opposition relied heavily. It is nonsense to say that it was the Act that nearly caused the national dock strike. As my right hon. Friend made plain the pressures were there before, and it was the existence of the Act that certainly helped to set up the Jones-Aldington Committee which is dealing with the really difficult problems which exist. Several points of dispute have been sufficiently settled to allow that committee to deal with this other problem, albeit with a limited amount of time available to it.

Mr. Prentice: Exactly in what way were the procedures of the Act or of the court used to set up the Jones-Aldington Committee?

Mr. Macmillan: It is fairly plain. The provisions of the Act identified the fact that this was fundamentally a dispute between two sections of the same union and it was the Act that led to the pressures put on both leaderships that certainly contributed to their wish to settle that dispute.
Members of the Labour Party opposite when in Government suggested that the CIR should tackle these former inter-union disputes if the TUC could not resolve them by itself but in this case

neither the CIR nor the TUC were available. So it was that some of the members of one union took the others to court, and it was the refusal of those others to respond that led to further trouble and open defiance of the court order imposed.
It is not damaging to the law, to the Act or to the court that the law intervened in another guise and that another and superior court was brought in. I find the view of the Leader of the Opposition quite extraordinary. He said contemptuously, that what one court decides another court rejects. That is a normal practice between the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Court of Appeal has no right to overturn the judgment of an inferior court, he is going rather far. The Court of Appeal is part of the framework of the law and the NIRC is also part of that framework, with the full protection of the law for work people, unions and management.
It cannot be damaging to the law if it is seen to be protecting people even from some of the consequences of their own actions. It cannot be damaging to the law to give the right of access to a court to those whose jobs are theatened by the activities of others, when they have left no other avenue of redress. Still less can it be damaging to give the right of access in long-standing disputes, as the NIRC has done and is doing, and when the NIRC recognises, as it does, that it should be the last and not the first resort and seeks to avoid formal orders and to get instead informal settlements. These are not actions which are injurious to industrial relations—unless the Opposition are saying that there is no place for industrial relations in the law at all and not merely for the Industrial Relations Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eylesbury(Mr. Raison) made it quite plain that there is more to industrial relations than the law and the Act. It is true that the State has always been involved with the process of industrial relations. That is not a dictum of the present Government alone. It was well recognised by the Labour Government. They, too, recognised the need for State intervention and involvement in association with both sides of industry. The question they


failed to answer was what form that intervention should take.
There are many differences between the Government and the Opposition on this issue, and our Act is more favourable to the unions and the workpeople than were the proposals put forward by the Labour Government. The powers of the Act are not exercised without the opportunity for unions to oppose them in a court. The Labour Government's proposals included penal clauses whereby failure to observe the conciliation machinery would have been a criminal offence. We introduced the concept of "unfair industrial action", which enables only civil action to be taken. The sanctions the Labour Government proposed on individuals would also have born more hardly on them.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that my right hon. and hon. Friends, in discussing the Industrial Relations Act, did not make it plain that there was the possibility of imprisonment for contempt of court. Any action that involves a court requires those who apply to it to comply with the orders of the court. Failure to comply with the orders of any court, including the Industrial Relations Court, may lead to penalties, including imprisonment. However, we also made it plain, which the hon. Gentleman appeared to challenge, that there was no question of any imprisonment by means of the Act for any industrial practice or offence.

Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry to have to try to get this through the thick skull of the right hon. Gentleman. I have repeatedly said that the effect of the Act was to put people in prison. The effect of the Act was demonstrated at Chobham Farm when lads were exposed to the possibility of imprisonment.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong again. It is not the effect of the Act but the effect of being in contempt of court, which is something entirely different. The hon. Gentleman must accept that. The proposals which the Labour Government put up included proceedings for contempt.
I make one admission to the House. The Code of Industrial Practice, set up under the Act, is not quite so tough on

the responsibilities of the unions to keep agreements as the TUC's "Industrial Relations—a Guide for Negotiations". As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) pointed out, it has led to a considerable improvement in firms. A large number of firms are studying the code with a view to improving their industrial relations and their practices.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the education of shop stewards, and that is happening in fact. There are seminars and training courses in which both managements and shop stewards are taking part in an attempt to improve their industrial relations. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) mentioned the importance of associating middle management with such seminars and training courses, and the importance of that aspect is fully accepted in the code. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the protection of individual rights, but the right hon. Gentleman sneered at that. He seemed to think it unimportant that individual rights are protected under the Act. But I do not think that those whose rights have been successfully dealt with are nearly as contemptuous as he is.
These are policies for improving the practices of firms, for the protection of individual rights and for the solving of problems which the Labour Government identified in "In Place of Strife" but with which they did nothing to deal. They are not policies of divisiveness; they are not policies of confrontation. They are an essential and important part of the Act, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman at least now recognises and has amended, as it were, verbally the terms of the Motion, saying that the Opposition will not repeal the Act but only parts of it. He is not, it seems, going to repeal the good parts, but only the bad parts. In other words, he is proposing to do just what the Opposition did when in Government—refuse to deal with difficult problems which are set before any Government in a modern society.
The Motion talks of confrontation. What confronted the present Government when they took office was a wage explosion and mounting price inflation. We did not abdicate before the challenge. We have improved the price situation.


Prices are now rising at 6 per cent. as opposed to 10 per cent. last July. We have had some success in slowing down the rate of increases in wages. But they are still rising faster than prices, thus helping to push prices even higher.
The Government accept their responsibilities. We shall not abdicate as the Labour Government did. But it is also the responsibility of unions and managements to find a more rational approach to settlements. The Government welcome the CBI-TUC talks and seek to co-operate with both unions and managements in all these matters, as my right hon. Friend has made clear. I hope that that co-operation will lead to a more coherent and less disruptive system of wage negotiations and conciliation, a system which recognises the wider public interest. I hope, too, that, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, most hon. Members opposite will recognise, as they did under the Labour Government, that the public are concerned; that there is indeed a public interest in the settlement of industrial disputes, and that there is a public interest in industrial relations.
It is because there is a public interest that the State and the Government are concerned. It is because there is a public interest that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that it can best be protected within the law. I hope that hon. Members opposite will extend this concept to the sort of situation which they failed to deal with where, to quote their own words:
imperfect competition in many industries may enable unions and employers to continue to exploit their worker power at the expense of other members of the community".
That is why I tell the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that there is trouble in these vital sectors, as his right hon. Friend recognised.
If we can establish some better form of machinery, and agreements are reached, the provisions of the Act will not be invoked, because there will be no unfair industrial practice, provided that the machinery is used and the agreements are kept. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are seeking to go

further, if they are seeking to abrogate the Act, so that agreements are not kept, all that they are asking for is unrestricted licence for unofficial action, unsupported by the unions concerned. I cannot believe that that is what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are asking for, especially when such a state of anarchy is already proving damaging to union interests and can only make the situation worse in the future. It is damaging not only to union membership but to the country as a whole.

For all that the Opposition Motion talks about confrontation, they have not established that the Government have sought anything of the kind. The Industrial Relations Act has no power to bring about confrontation. It is not a wage-restraining instrument in itself. It is not a union-bashing instrument. It cannot be denied that there should be a degree of accountability in unions and employers, as in every form of trade union relations, provided that it is within the framework of the law. That is fundamental in industrial relations. The Labour Party, when in Government, abandoned most of their ideas, and the Leader of the Opposition made the position clear beforehand when he said that legislation was essential and that the problem would not be solved by an abdication by the Government of its responsibilities, nor will it be solved by any threatened abdication by the TUC of theirs.

It is that that I accuse him of having done—of abdicating—and he now has no coherent policy. At best he has advocated a return to 1906—a sort of neo-Victorian commitment to laissez faire. He cannot claim that this will be of any use in helping to solve industrial relations problems, and the settlement of wage claims. It is for those reasons, and because it is in the public interest and in the interest of industrial relations, that I ask the House to support the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 272.

Division No. 257.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Astor, John
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Atkins, Humphrey
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian




Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Gorst, John
Mather, Carol


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Benyon, W.
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biffen, John
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gummer, Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Body, Richard
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Moate, Roger


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Money, Ernle


Bowden, Andrew
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Bray, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brewis, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Havers, Michael
Mudd, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N &amp; M)
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey


Buck, Antony
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Burden, F. A.
Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
.
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L
Onslow, Cranley


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Osborn, John


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Miss Mary
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hordern, Peter
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornby, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Churchill, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peel, John


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Percival, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cormack, Patrick
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Costain, A. P.
Jessel, Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Redmond, Robert


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Digby, Simon Wingfield
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Drayson, G. B.
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lambton, Antony
Royle, Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lamont, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Sir Richard


Farr, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Simeons, Charles


Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Longden, Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, R. N.
Soref, Harold


Fockes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Foster, Sir John
McLaren, Martin
Sproat, Ian


Fowler, Norman
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
McMaster, Stanley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Steel, David


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Madel, David.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maginnis, John E
Sutcliffe, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhart, Philip

Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)







Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Norman
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Temple, John M.
Waddington, David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Worsley, Marcus


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)
Wall, Patrick
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tilney, John
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hn. George


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Warren, Kenneth



Trew, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tugendhat, Christopher
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James


Albu, Austen
Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ellis, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Leonard, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred
Lestor, Miss Joan


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Henry
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Barnes, Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Baxter, William
Foot, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
McBride, Neil


Bishop, E. S.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McCartney, Hugh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Golding, John
Mackie, John


Bradley, Tom
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P C.
Mackintosh, John P.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Bob (Nc'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow. C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsden F.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamling, William
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Cant, R. B
Hardy, Peter
Mayhew, Christopher


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Castle, Rt. Hn Barbara
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hilton, W. S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cohen, Stanley
Hooson, Emlyn
Milne, Edward


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Concannon, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William


Conlan, Bernard
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moyle, Roland


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Janner, Greville
Murray, Ronald King


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Ogden, Eric


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)




Padley, Walter


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Delargy, H. J.
Jones, Gynoro (Carmarthen)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pardoe, John


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Driberg, Tom
Kinnock, Neil
Pendry, Tom


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Pentland, Norman


Dunn, James A.
Lamborn, Harry
Perry, Ernest G.







Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.


Prescott, John
Skinner, Dennis
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Price, William (Rugby)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Wallace, George


Probert, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Rankin. John
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Steel, David
Weils, William (Walsall, N.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Richard, Ivor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roper, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rose, Paul B.
Summerskill, Hn Dr. Shirley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rowlands, Ted
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Sandelson, Neville
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)



Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Sillars, James
Urwin, T. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put: —

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 273.

Division No. 258.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Gurden, Harold


Allison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cormack, Patrick
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Allison, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Costain, A. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Critchley, Julian
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Crouch, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Astor, John
Crowder, F. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Atkins, Humphrey
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Awdry, Daniel
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Haselhurst, Alan


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Hastings, Stephen


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dean, Paul
Havers, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hawkins, Paul


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hayhoe, Barney


Bell,Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Heath,Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dodds-Parker. Douglas
Heseltine, Michael


Benyon, W.
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Higgins, Terence L.


Biffen, John
Dykes, Hugh
Hiley, Joseph


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Holland, Philip


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Holt, Miss Mary


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hordern, Peter


Body, Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornby, Richard


Boscawen, Robert
Emery, Peter
Hornsby-Smih,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John
Howell, David (Guildford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Bray, Ronald
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hunt, John


Brewis, John
Fidler, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Iremonger, T. L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
James, David


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fortescue, Tim
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Foster, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Antony
Fowler, Norman
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fox, Marcus
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jopling. Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Cary, Sir Robert
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kilfedder, James


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kimball, Marcus


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Churchill, W. S.
Gorst, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gower, Raymond
Kinsey, J. R.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kirk, Peter


Clegg, Walter
Gray, Hamish
Kitson, Timothy


Cockeram, Eric
Green, Alan
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Cooke, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Knox, David


Coombs, Derek
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Cooper, A. E.
Grylls, Michael
Lambton, Lord


Cordle, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Lamont, Norman




Langford-Holt, Sir John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Stainton, Keith


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Osborn, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Le Marchant, Spencer
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Lloyd,Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Parkinson, Cecil
Tapsell, Peter


Loveridge, John
Peel, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Luce, R. N.
Percival, Ian
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


McCrindle, R. A.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


McLaren, Martin
Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


McMaster, Stanley
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)




Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M
Tilney, John


Madel, David
Raison, Timothy
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Maginnis, John E.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Trew, Peter


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tugendhat, Christopher


Marten, Neil
Redmond, Robert
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mather, Carol
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maude, Angus
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Walker-Smith. Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wall, Patrick


Miscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Moate, Rogert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Money, Ernle
Rost, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Royle, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Monro, Hector
Russell, Sir Ronald
Winterton, Nicholas


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


More, Jasper
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wood Rt. Hn. Richard


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sharples, Sir Richard
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Woodnutt, Mark


Morrison, Charles
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Worsley, Marcus


Mudd, David
Simeons, Charles
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Murton, Oscar
Sinclair, Sir George
Younger, Hn. George


Neave, Airey
Skeet, T. H. H.



Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Soref, Harold
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Nott, John
Spence, John



Onslow, Cranley
Sproat, Iain





NOES


Abse, Leo
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm. Northfield)
Duffy, A E. P


Albu, Austen
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dunn, James A


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunnett, Jack


Allen, Scholefield
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Edelman, Maurice


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol. S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Ashley, Jack
Conn, Stanley
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Ashton, Joe
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, Tom


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Fred


Barnes, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth. C.)
Faulds, Andrew


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Baxter, William
Cronin, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foley, Maurice


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foot, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Forrester, John


Bishop, E. S.
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)



Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Freeson, Reginald


Booth, Albert
Davidson, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Garrett, W. E.


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davis, Clinton (Hackney. C.)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Golding, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Deakins, Eric
Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Gourlay, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Delargy, H. J.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Doig, Peter
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire. W.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Carmichael, Neil
Driberg Tom
Hamling, William







Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hardy, Peter
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roper, John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rose, Paul B.


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rowlands, Ted


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Marquand, David
Sandelson, Neville


Heffer, Eric S.
Marsden, F.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hilton, W. S.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short,Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Horam, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sillars, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John
Silverman, Julius


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce
Small, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward
Spearing, Nigel


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, Greville
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stallard, A. W.


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Molloy, William
Steel, David


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Strang, Gavin


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Murray, Ronald King
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oakes, Gordon
Swain, Thomas


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Taverne, Dick


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Malley, Brian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oram, Bert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Stanley
Torney, Tom


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Tuck, Raphael


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Urwin, T. W.


Kinnock, Neil
Padley, Walter
Varley, Eric G.


Lambie, David
Paget, R. T.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Lamborn, Harry
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lamond, James
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wallace, George


Latham, Arthur
Pardoe, John
Watkins, David


Lawson, George
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Weitzman, David


Leadbitter, Ted




Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wellbeloved, James


Leonard, Dick
Pavitt, Laurie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pentland, Norman
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Perry, Ernest G.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Loughlin, Charles
Prescott, John
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McBride, Neil
Rankin, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Woof, Robert


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)



McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mackenzie, Gregor
Richard, Ivor
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Mackie, John
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Mackintosh, John P.
Robertson, John (Paisley)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House endorses the policy of Her Majesty's Government to provide a framework,

within the law, which will enable industrial relations in Britain to be improved, and which will contribute to the protection of the community from the damaging consequences of industrial disputes.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY)

10.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
The order gives effect to the provisions contained in a Bill which had passed through all stages of the House of Commons in Northern Ireland and had had its First Reading in the Senate of Northern Ireland before Prorogation. It provides for thereorganisation of the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland.
This Measure is being brought forward now for two reasons. As long ago as 1963 an independent report on the industry recommended such reorganisation and a first step towards this was taken in 1967 when the Joint Electricity Authority, a co-ordinating and planning body, was established. As hon. Members may be aware, a thorough reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland is in train and the Government decided that within the framework of this reorganisation, which inevitably raises the question of the future of municipal electricity undertakings, further progress should now be made towards a unified electricity system.
The object of the reorganisation of the industry is to provide a more efficient and economical system of electricity supply. This will involve the reorganisation of all aspects of electricity supply from the long-term planning of future generation and transmission requirements to the servicing of the individual consumer throughout Northern Ireland. The reorganisation will be in a new body to be known as the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. It follows that the existing bodies comprising the industry—that is to say, the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Joint Electricity Authority and the municipal undertakings at Belfast and Londonderry—are to be dissolved.
The generating capacity of the Northern Ireland system is 1,200 megawatts, compared with a capacity of 50,000 mega-

watts in Great Britain, but demand is increasing at a rate of nearly 10 per cent. a year. Capital employed exceeds £150 million and the industry has an annual revenue of over £30 million.
The order confers the necessary powers on the service to enable it to complete the reorganisation of the industry and thereafter to run it on efficient and economical lines. This will be subject only to the retention by the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland of certain powers of decision and guidance on policy matters, for example, capital expenditure and financing, as well as consents to such matters as the erection of overhead lines and generating stations.
Provision is made in the order to ensure that in the long run all costs incurred whether on capital or revenue account must be recovered through sales to consumers, and over the years accounting equilibrium must be maintained.
The present borrowing limits in relation to the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, which is currently responsible for most capital expenditure, is set at £160 million. Having regard to the proposed amalgamation of the board and the other undertakings and to the high degree of capitalisation inseparable from the economics of electricity supply, there is provisionin this order for an immediate borrowing ceiling for the new Service of £350 million, to be raised by order where necessary to a ceiling of £500 million.
The order provides also for the establishment of a Consumers' Council—which is a new concept in Northern Ireland electricity legislation—for the expression of the consumer interest. Representation on the Consumers' Council will be on the lines provided for in the Consultative Councils established under the Great Britain Electricity Acts of 1947 and 1957. Special provision is made for the establishment of local committees to act as local representatives of the Council and thus maintain close consumer relations at local level and assist in the development of plans to meet local needs.
The transfer provisions with regard to the staff of existing bodies in the industry are designed to protect the interests of these employees and also to provide compensation should they find themselves in a less favourable position because of the


transfer. The Ministry will be empowered to make orders safeguarding the rights of all affected employees. Staff and trade union organisations will be consulted before any such orders are made.
No redundancies in the electricity supply industry are expected as an immediate result of this order. However, it is hoped that savings in staff will be made as administrative services are rationalised, but it is expected that these will be offset by normal wastage. The opportunity has also been taken to bring together in the order all the relevant statutory provisions affecting the industry from as far back as 1882.
I should like to take this opportunity of placing on record my appreciation of the work performed over many years, but particularly in the past three years, by all those in the electricity industry in Northern Ireland. Not only have the management boards and committees of Belfast Corporation, the Londonderry Commission, the Electricity Board in Northern Ireland and the Joint Electricity Authority been called upon to exercise their judgment and make decisions in most difficult circumstances, but the workers in the power stations and in the field have faced unusual hazards in order to maintain a vital public service. It would be invidious to mention individuals, but it is only right that I should pay a tribute to the whole of the industry at this moment when it enters on a new phase of its existence.
In conclusion I should like to express my confidence that the framework provided by the order will further the efficiency and success of the industry and provide good standards of service to the consumer.
I therefore ask the House to support the Motion.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is appropriate for the order to be taken under the special procedures under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, because, as the Under-Secretary has explained, it went through all its procedures in the House of Commons at Stormont. However, it is obvious that, if we were to be presented with a Measure which had not been discussed in Stormont, our procedures would be inappro-

priate to deal with a highly complex and technical Measure like this, even if the vast majority of the information and decisions in it are non-controversial in the party political sense.
The order unifies the Electricity Board, Belfast Corporation and the Londonderry Development Commission, which were formerly involved in electricity supplies, and the Northern Ireland Joint Electricity Authority. I ask the Under-Secretary to make it clearer how the functions of the joint authority are to be carried out by the new organisation. It is obvious how the new body will take control over generation and transmission which were carried out by the joint organisation. It will no longer have to acquire all supplies of electricity and then redistribute. There is the question of making recommendations to the Ministry of Commerce on matters relating generally to the supply of electricity.
My first main question concerns the financial objective of the new body. Over almost exactly the last 10 years there has been much discussion in this House about financial objectives. I have here Command 3437, "A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives", of November, 1967. There have been changes in this respect since. They may be only marginal, but changes have taken place. I suppose that if we want to turn to the fountain head it is still the 1967 White Paper. On page 12, paragraph 33, it states:
Clear financial objectives will continue to be necessary"—
for the nationalised industries—
so that the industries know what is expected of them by the Government. Thus they serve both as an incentive to management and as one of the standards by which success or failure over a period of years may be judged.
What is the financial objective of this new organisation? Article 17 of the order states:
The Service shall perform its functions so as to secure that its revenue is not less than sufficient to meet charges properly chargeable to revenue account, taking one year with another.
As I recall, that is almost word for word what was in the original nationalisation Statutes of 1945 to 1950. I agree that not all the nationalised industries have been given a financial objective. That is so with British Rail, for example, and one or two other industries which still


operate under that general rubric. However, it is important, when a matter like this comes before the House, to find out what the management has to set out to do in the context of Northern Ireland.
Now that there is direct rule, from where will the new nationalised organisation get its money? Will it come through something equivalent to the National Loans Fund, but operating under the Ministry of Finance? I will not develop that theme. Indeed, given the scope of the order, one could develop most of these points at great length, but I will leave that matter.
Now that we have a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries be able to look at this new organisation? Will the Select Committee on Science and Technology, over which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) presides, be able to look at it? What about the PAC and the Expenditure Committee? If the great discussions which have taken place over the last 10 to 15 years about the place of nationalised industries, their relationship to the House of Commons, and our desire to set up bodies which can look with greater precision and detail at the running of them are relevant, they are equally relevant to nationalised corporations in Northern Ireland.
The next question, on which the Minister touched, concerns the people employed by the new composite body. The hon. Gentleman said there was no question of redundancies. I am not thinking in the context of redundancies. Will there be a larger number of people employed in future, not because of the amalgamation, but because of technical change, and so on? Were the trade unions brought into the discussions before the order was placed before us and before the Bill was put through the Northern Ireland House of Commons? I understand that discussion will take place now. I wonder how much discussion had taken place before the Bill was drawn up.
There are two aspects of that order with which I hope the Minister will deal. Article 42 contains a provision about the transfer of officers and Article 43 refers to compensation. I raise these matters because in the last six months I have learned of the extremely sensible political

work done by the trade unions in Northern Ireland and I know, too, of the work that they have done in the industrial field over the years.
I can work only on the figures that I have been able to obtain, and they may not be as accurate as those which the Minister can get from his Department. As I understand it, there are about 387,000 premises in the North of Ireland which can obtain electricity, the largest numbers being in the Province as a whole, with 130,000 in Belfast and 14,000 in Londonderry. The total number of premises is 450,000, so there is a gap of 70,000 to 80,000. What action do the Government propose to take to provide a 100 per cent. supply? From the little research that I have been able to do by looking through the annual report of the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, I am pleasantly surprised to learn that the board made excellent progress in supplying electricity to farms, which must mean that, given my figures, many homes in rural areas, and perhaps in urban district areas, do not have any supply. This was brought to my notice when I visited the Province recently.
During the debates at Stormont it was estimated that it would take three years for a harmonisation of the rates between the three bodies. Need it take so long? Belfast has the lower tariff, and I imagine that that was the case for public ownership in this country, that the towns would have had a lower tariff than the rural areas. What is the Government's aim? Is it appropriate that it should be a Government aim, or will it be left to the new authority? Is it a question of the Belfast rates going up to carry the rural areas, or have the Government something else in mind?
Consumer consultation has been the least successful part of nationalisation over the last 25 to 30 years. As the Second Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries said last year, there is too much identification with the industry concerned and not enough independence so that the consumer bodies can look where they like and say what they like with a great deal of freedom. The Committee recommended that the cost of the consumer consultative bodies should not fall on the industry concerned and that they should be enabled to comment


on matters of general principle involving their respective industries and on any matters which impinge directly on consumer interest. Does Article 14 mean just that?
One thing about which I am not clear is how many part-time and how many full-time members there are. That is a matter which has exercised the minds of hon. Members in this House, as has their rôle. Heaven forbid that we should reach that pitch of having a statutory Catholic for the sake of it, but it is important to use all the professional ability that is available in Northern Ireland. I wonder what instructions are being given by the Department via the Ministry in Northern Ireland to the new organisation to make sure that this is done. What criteria are adopted? Our major nationalisation Acts between 1945 and 1950 laid down the sort of abilities the Minister would look for when he appointed part-time and full-time members to the nationalised industries' boards. I see no sign of that here. Perhaps it arises in another piece of legislation, or I may have missed it. Perhaps the Minister could put me right.
If there is increased capital investment it will mean that more homes will be electrified. I notice from the Northern Ireland Economic Report for 1971 the forecast that domestic capital expenditure in the public sector is to increase by about £4 million compared with the 1971–72 figure. That is under the heading for utility investment, and it does not distinguish between gas, electricity, transport, the Post Office and the BBC. Is that enough to deal with the figures the Minister gave us?
What proposals are there for more power stations? I understand that there was a proposal for a new power station at Kilroot in County Antrim. Is that still on? Are there any other proposals for capital investment to increase the output to meet the expected 9 per cent. increase of demand? Involved in that increase is the need to deal with electrification in rural areas, but it must at least to some degree be a sign that industry in Northern Ireland, despite the great problems it has had in the past three years, is remarkably resilient.
I do not want to develop the question of joint activities with the South, because

we have talked about it before. But when joint activity between North and South on the political level is almost a subject people keep off, and is not something we can discuss in an academic sense, here is something we can discuss in a practical sense. What joint activities are there between the North and South in electricity supply? For the South and the North to meet and to work together practically in the context of power, for what is in many respects for the North and South in economic terms a backward area, makes very good sense. More than that is needed. What is on my mind is the most interesting article on economic development in the South of Ireland by Mr. Crotty in The Times today, making it quite clear that it is not just technological questions that matter when we are considering the economic advance of the Irish.
Can the Minister give some idea of the source of fuel for the power stations that the new authority will take over? The report refers to both oil-firing and coal-firing. Can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the proportions? The question matters to this country because as far as I know there is very little coal in Ireland, and most of it will be a different sort from that needed for power stations. In view of the problems affecting oil supply in different parts of the world, is any thought being given to more coal-burning power stations in the North of Ireland?
The Minister has power to give orders to the new public corporation. The power that interested me was on page 50, concerning damage or interference with works, which says:
If any person without lawful authority wilfully or recklessly cuts, damages or interferes with any electric line or works…
he shall be liable to a penalty of five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. Coming back to the stark reality of the situation, may we assume that there is a close liaison with the security authorities for the protection of the vital installations of the new body? I raise this question because while in our more general discussions with the Secretary of State the other day we talked of low profile response, the no-go areas, and so on, I just want to be quite sure that when one reads in the Press of people talking of cutting supplies to certain areas the


security authorities, on the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman, are watching the position very carefully. It is important in our view that, low profile though it may be in one respect, there should be a very high profile response to anyone who talks of taking the law into his own hands in deciding to which part of the Province electricity supplies should go.
In general, we welcome the order, and shall do all we can to facilitate its progress.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I welcome the order, which is of great importance to the people of Northern Ireland. It will benefit everyone in the community, and because of that it takes on a new importance. As there is so much taking place in the Province which is divisive, it is a heartfelt pleasure to take part in a debate which has as its aim the betterment of all Ulster people regardless of religion or politics. I regret that, once again, Republican Members from Northern Ireland have failed in their duty as Members of Parliament to attend to debate a matter which is essential for all people in the community there.
My constituency is made up of both rural and town areas. It takes in a considerable slice of the Belfast suburbs, where the electricity consumer has generally had a satisfactory service from the Belfast Corporation Electricity Department, which has always manifested a humanitarian approach to those who had fallen into arrear through no culpable fault of their own. I hope that the new Electricity Service will continue to show this decency and understanding to those who, through illness or other misfortune, have been unable to meet their bills. To my knowledge, we have had no case in Northern Ireland where an elderly person has died from lack of heating as a result of having the electricity supply cut off. This is to the credit of the electricity service.
The Belfast Corporation has been efficient and competent in the manner in which it has provided a full electricity service to its citizens, but I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that the people who live in the rural areas have not been so fortunate.

Whenever a farmer wished to install electricity on his farm he had to pay a considerable sum. Some people, who have little knowledge of farming, take pleasure in attacking the farming community, and in suggesting that the farmers are all well off. To them the grass grows and the cattle fatten without any assistance from the farmer, who just leanson his gate and watches it all happen!
I doubt whether many people in Northern Ireland work such long hours as the farmers do—out in all weather, at the mercy of the weather, with such a small return on his capital investment or his labour. Quite apart from the need to provide electricity for the farm dwelling house, the electrification of the farm is necessary and vital to enable the farmer to get his hard-earned marginal profit in these times of high competition. The financial burden of paying heavily for the installation of electricity acts as a deterrent to some. In most cases it imposes a liability which makes those living in rural areas second-class citizens. The hon. Member for Leeds, South mentioned the difference between the tariffs in Belfast and elsewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that important matter. Why should the cost of the installation of electricity be so prohibitive in the rural areas? I hope that the new service can do something considerable towards helping those living in the rural areas.
Those who live in the country form a large section of the Ulster community, and I trust that they will have adequate representation on the board and the council. I should add that the proper number of representatives should be judged not upon the present number of consumers of electricity, but upon the potential number and their great need.
I strongly criticise the name of the new electricity undertaking, the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. There seems no valid reason for the departure from the title of the present undertaking. If I had the power to move an Amendment, which I have not, I should seek to change the title to that of "Northern Ireland Electricity Board". That is the name by which the service has always been known in Northern Ireland and the electricity undertakings in Great Britain are


also known as "boards". Why make this unnecessary change? It will add an unnecessary burden to the cost of the new service, which will have to engage in new printing, get rid of its existing writing paper and make all the other necessary changes. It is an unnecessary waste of money.
The service is to have nine members, who are all to be paid a reasonable salary. They have an important function to perform and I trust that the best possible people will be chosen. It is right that the new Service should have the best? The criteria by which they should be judged is their technical ability and knowledge of the industry. However, I strongly object to the fact that only four members will be necessary to form a quorum. In other words, less than half the membership will be able to make decisions. Surely five should be the minimum where there are nine members.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am glad of the agreement of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on this matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Member aware that the service will be able to function with three officers and one member. In effect the three officers, with the addition of one member only, will be able to run the whole concern.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks. I am puzzled by the quorum. If the members are to play a proper part in deliberations and in decisions, then one must expect them to be diligent in their attendance. It is pointless to reduce the number needed for a quorum to four.
There was one disappointment in the short speech of the Under-Secretary. He made no reference to the possibility of nuclear power. He said that demand is running at the rate of 10 per cent. increase each year since there is a tremendous demand for electricity in Northern Ireland, we should be thinking in terms of providing for that potential growth by generating electricity through nuclear power. I ask my hon. Friend to look into the matter. Under the order a consumer is responsible for the maintenance of his own electricity

meter. If the consumer asks for the meter to be checked, he will, I understand, have to pay for it. Surely the service should carry the charge for meter checking. The mechanism from time to time must surely need attention, and this should be the responsibility of the service.
The reports of the new service are to be laid before Parliament, as are the reports of the Electricity Consumers Council, but the Parliament referred to in each case is Stormont, which is suspended and we do not know when, if ever, it will be restored to life. There is therefore no proper provision for considering the reports at the moment, but such consideration will be exceptionally important in the first year of operation of the new organisation. How will this defect be remedied?
Under Article 49, Statutory Instruments can be made, subject to affirmative Resolution, but again of the Stormont Parliament. A number of these powers will need to be exercised in the very near future. What provision is being made to enable such orders to get proper public scrutiny?
I share in the tribute paid to the electricity service of Northern Ireland. It is right to remember the terrible atrocity committed in August, 1971, by the explosion at the headquarters of the electricity board, when a constituent of mine, a young man of 23, was killed and 35 other people were injured, some of the girls being horribly maimed. It is also right to remind the House of the fact that throughout all the troubles which have been visited upon Northern Ireland the electricity service has maintained supplies and should be given full credit for doing so.
I have pleasure in supporting the Motion.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The House knows my long-standing interest in electricity supply questions. I can claim to have taken part in every debate in the House affecting electricity supply during the periods I have been a Member, and since this Motion is before the United Kingdom Parliament I do not propose to make any apology for taking part in the debate, even


though my constituency is in the South-West of England. I have been to Northern Ireland on many occasions in connection with electricity supply and other matters. Indeed, I recently spent two days in Belfast talking to my friends and colleagues in the Electrical Power Engineers' Association and in other centres of electricity supply knowledge and opinion in the city.
Electricity supply is by its nature a complicated matter and the legislation about it is bound to be complicated as well. Electricity perhaps more than any other public service in modern life enters into every nook and cranny of our lives; it spreads to everywhere there are people; industry and agriculture rest solidly upon ample supplies of electrical energy. Therefore—without being too fanciful—when we discuss electricity we are discussing life.
It is a great pity that we have so little time this evening. The important and intricate technical, administrative and financial questions that arise on this legislation are not being scrutinised in any detail by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, yet the order is in front of us. I therefore want to make my protest that legislation of this significance should be dealt with in such a summary fashion. If the United Kingdom Parliament is to legislate, the United Kingdom Parliament should know the background to the question, and it would not have come amiss if we had had a White Paper setting out that background. That is done for any normal major change of this kind—and here virtually the nationalisation of the electricity supply of Northern Ireland is proposed and will be carried through in a short while when the order is through tonight.
I make a comparison with what has happened in the case of the present Gas Bill, with which I am rather closely connected, in terms of the affairs of this House. The Gas Bill makes a substantial change in the situation, it is true, but within the present structure of the nationalised gas undertakings of England, Wales and Southern Scotland. In that case we have had not only the publication of the Bill; we have had the Second Reading and no less than 27 sittings in Standing Committee upstairs. We have already partly discussed the

Report stage, on two Fridays. Yet here we are dealing with legislation for the complete reorganisation of electricity supplies in Northern Ireland and we have only 1½ hours' discussion.
Like other hon. Members, I agree with the general principle of the legislation, which is to establish a unified Electricity Service in place of the present undertakings—two corporation undertakings in Belfast and Londonderry, the Northern Ireland Electricity Board, and the smaller Joint Electricity Committee. They are all to be lumped together under the general title of the "Electricity Service". In short, this is to do what was done for England in 1947, with the second reorganisation in 1958, and was done for Scotland in the 1944 Act for the Hydro-Electric Board, and for the South of Scotland Board in 1952.
The Minister argued correctly that this will bring much advantage in economies of scale, capital allocation, planning, and the loading of networks, and probably in terms of the capacity to employ the best staff. But consumer accountability is important. I welcome this particular reform in electricity affairs in Northern Ireland, which means—I understand—that the principles of consumer accountability which have been well used in nationalisation legislation on this side of the water are to be applied in Northern Ireland.
The question of employees' conditions of service is also most important. I ask for an assurance from the Minister—I have had no time to investigate these matters in all details, in spite of my trip to Belfast—that in the matter of legislation for the regulation of terms and conditions of employment, joint consultation, and so on, the very best practice is being followed, and that there are no special exceptions or different approaches—because I have discovered something extraordinary in the Schedule, on page 36 of the order, under the general title, "Officers". So as not to be tedious, I shall not read paragraph 12, but I assure the House that it is a fairly standard provision for settlement of negotiations of terms and conditions of employment and so on and for the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed by the service.
What is curious is paragraph 11. It is unlike anything I know in other nationalisation legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. It says:
The qualifications, remuneration and conditions of service of officers of the Service shall, where not prescribed by regulations under sub-paragraph (2), be determined by the Service subject to the approval of the Ministry. Regulations may make provision with respect to"—
the appointment of officers of the Service and the establishment of an advisory service and so on.
This is extraordinary. Is it suggested that the Ministry should take power in certain circumstances arbitrarily to decide from on top the remuneration of certain classes of employees? If so, there must be some special reason, and it is very different, as I say, from anything known in the electricity service here, where with a few exceptions every grade of employee from top to bottom is subject to free collective bargaining. Is this arrangement outside the normal negotiations between trade union, or staff association, and the new Electricity Service? I shall be glad to have an assurance about that, for in the ordinary way Northern Ireland prides itself on closely following the models here. This difference is remarkable, and I hope that an explanation will be forthcoming.
The existing staff are concerned about their future. It is true that there were detailed and useful discussions between the unions and the Belfast Corporation, the Electricity Board of Northern Ireland, and other existing undertakings. The staff are concerned that there shall be a proper and full system of compensation in the event of anyone being displaced. The Under-Secretary rather optimistically said that on the reorganisation of an expanding service it was unlikely that anyone would lose his job, but experience of reorganisations shows that that optimism is not always justified and it is important that the position of employees in a public service of this kind should be fully safeguarded for the longest possible period up to the standard which has become customary.
There is also genuine concern about pension protection for employees of the Belfast Corporation. There have been several pension schemes, there. One has

been non-contributory, and those who have built up reckonable service in it are anxious not to lose anything by the transfer arrangements. I am not saying that the arrangements will not be all right, but it is important that firm assurances be given and be implemented swiftly.
What about future accountability to this House? It will be interesting to know as my hon. Friend said whether the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will be able to investigate the affairs of this new nationalised undertaking. The term "Ministry" is used throughout the order rather than "Minister". I imagine this is to give a certain flexibility if further political changes take place in Northern Ireland. Will we be able to question the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on electricity supplies with the same freedom—which is somewhat limited because the public corporations manage their own affairs—as we are able to question the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about electricity affairs south of the Border and the Secretary of State for Scotland about the affairs of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board? It would be valuable to know whether such questions will be in order.
I think I can speak with some practical experience of the problems, as a power supply engineer, of running an electricity supply system. It is a 24-hour responsibility and there are certain dangers faced by operating employees. We tend to forget that sometimes in a year up to half a dozen employees, of varying grades, lose their lives due to mistakes, not always their own fault, in switching, isolating, and in other ways. It is a somewhat danger occupation at times in any case but the dangers have been added to enormously by the present bad political state of Northern Ireland affairs.
The House should therefore pay tribute to the electricity supply workers of all grades who have maintained this essential service under conditions often involving great personal danger. In the ordinary way they do not expect any particular thanks, but when electricity supply installations, because of their bearing on the whole organised life of the community, are made the subject of special armed and bombing attack, then


the industry's employees are particularly at risk. Irrespective of the views we may told about the future shape of a political settlement for Northern Ireland at least we can say that those who work for the Electricity Service have done nobly by their industry, their community and their country.

11.18 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is an important Measure and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). I believe I speak for all Northern Ireland Members when I say we welcome his valuable contribution. This is, as he says, the United Kingdom Parliament; the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want to remain part and parcel of this kingdom, ruled from this House and it is only right that this House should pay the closest possible attention to all Measures it enacts which will affect the well-being and the life of the Province. On behalf of the people of Northern Ireland may I say that we are always glad to hear such vital contributions as has been made by the hon. Member. This is the type of contribution that can help us in Northern Ireland to get out of some of the great difficulties in which we now find ourselves.
I found myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) because I did not feel I could go along with him when he said that he was perfectly prepared to accept this legislation because it had been discussed in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I discovered from the HANSARD reports of the debates that six Stormont Members took part in the discussions on Second Reading and during the Committee stage. If hon. Members avail themselves of the Northern Ireland HANSARDS, they will see that that was typical of the way in which legislation was passed through Stormont. When it is passed in such a way, this House has a stern duty to look very closely at legislation brought before it by Order in Council. Six Stormont Members and the Minister took part in the debates in Northern Ireland on this very important Measure. [An HON. MEMBER: "A quorum".] Yes, a quorum.
There are people who have agitated in Northern Ireland, saying that things

are not right concerning social amenities, and yet when we discuss a Measure which affects the well-being of all people in Northern Ireland, whether they be Protestant or Roman Catholic, Republican or Unionist, they are conspicuous by their absence. I should like Members of this House to take note of that point. If those people are sincere in their strong professions about wanting to help to improve the amenities of all the citizens of Northern Ireland, they could make a vital contribution to this debate, and they should be here to make it.
This order does away with the present system whereby electricity is supplied to the Province of Northern Ireland by three main suppliers: the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland, the Belfast Corporation Electricity Department and the Londonderry Electricity undertaking. This order proposes to dissolve those suppliers and to bring into being the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. I would not make heavy weather of the name which it should be given; that is not important. The important matter is to get the electricity to the people. Therefore, it does not worry me what the undertaking is called, as long as it delivers the goods.
I represent both an urban and a great rural district. Many areas of it are completely devoid of amenities. I am speaking for people who occupy houses publicly owned by the local councils. Their properties have neither electricity nor water. Heretofore they have had no chance of getting water and electricity. I defy any hon. Member to take me up on this point. I have people in my constituency who have waited 20 years for electricity and water, and they are still waiting. A slogan which I used during my election campaign on the Bann Side was "Wholly water for these houses". In the village of Ahoghill, which no doubt the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) knows very well, people still use the village pump, in a built-up area, and they still bury their sewage in their back yards and small back gardens.
Those are the issues in which I am interested. I welcome this order because it brings nearer to people I represent the possibility of having electric light in their homes. The tragedy is that people who had electricity installed in their homes, even though those homes were publicly


owned, had to pay for that installation. Their rents were increased, and some have been paying for 15 years for something which they should have been given as of right. It is surely the duty of the authorities concerned to supply electricity to those publicly-owned properties and it should not be on the shoulders of the people who live in them.
I have been to the homes of people who have waited for years for electricity to be supplied. They sit in their rooms lit by oil lamps, or candles and it is in those conditions they try to rear their families. Furthermore, some of them have to carry water for 200 yards. Therefore, I welcome this order which will bring at least one modern amenity to those homes—and perhaps after that will bring others.
The rural districts of Ulster have been sadly neglected in the provision of electricity. Farmers have had to pay dearly for the installation of electricity. I went into one farmer's home and every electric light in the place was burning. When I asked the farmer why all the lights were on, he said, "I had to enter into an agreement to pay so many pounds every year for electricity. If I burn it I pay for it, and if I do not burn it I pay for it. So I burn it." It is that sort of installation cost that causes such an irritant in the farming community.
We must also consider the matter of way leaves and the right to erect electrical apparatus on people's properties and on farmland. I have made criticisms of the EBNI, but I would pay tribute to it because its record in many cases has been a good one. I also pay tribute to the Belfast Electricity Board which did such a good job in electrifying the City of Belfast.
However, in regard to some of the way leaves which were negotiated, the farming community had little option but to allow poles and other installations to be erected where the EBNI desired them to be placed. One of my constituents had a piece of ground for which he had applied for planning permission. The EBNI decided to put a row of poles on that land, and my constituent had to go to the civil authority before he could get the board to change its original idea. Eventually the board decided to put the

poles in the hedge rather than in the middle of the field. That may be an isolated case, but it should certainly never be repeated. I trust the Minister will see that there is ample negotiation beforehand so that installations are not put in places which may have an adverse effect on amenities. These are little things which may perhaps not mean much to hon. Members in this House, but they mean a lot to people in Northern Ireland who own property and who wish to use that property to the fullest possible advantage.
I turn to the important matter involving the setting up of the Electricity Consumers Council. I agree with this proposal, but wish to draw attention to Schedule 2, paragraph l(b), which refers to the fact that the Council shall consist of not more than 30 other members, in addition to the chairman, of whom
not more than 10 may be appointed by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated from amongst members of district councils by such organisations as appear to the Minister to represent the district councils".
The people who need electricity are the people in the rural areas, but there is no statutory obligation on the Minister to have proper representation on that council from the rural districts. It is possible for him to select all members from urban districts. I ask the Minister to ensure that rural constituents, who are eager to have electricity, will have their views, represented on the council.
The Electricity Service is to consist of


"(a) a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman appointed by the Minister;
(b) the Chairman of the Council;
(c) not more than six other members…"
Under Part II of Schedule 1 the quorum is to be four, which means that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Service, the Chairman of the Council, and one member can run the undertaking. This should be altered so that at least two non-officers form part of the quorum.
We who represent Northern Ireland constituents are in the difficulty that we cannot amend the order: we must accept it. Many points which have been made tonight were made when the Bill was discussed at Stormont. Although the Bill will give a monopoly in the supply of electricity, it will do so in such a


way that some rural districts may never get electricity. Article 30 provides that
a person other than the Service shall not supply electricity".
However, a private person can generate electricity for his own use. This is essential in Northern Ireland, because some areas may not get electricity for a long time. The building of houses should be a priority in the Province. Some houses which are owned by public councils would, if they were privately owned, be condemned as unfit for human habitation. Sanitary inspectors have told me, "If that house were owned by a private person, I should close it, but because it is owned by a public council it is still occupied".
Such houses have little chance of being connected to the electricity supply. Builders trying to develop property will be prohibited from saying to would-be occupiers, "The only thing I can do is generate electricity for you".
The duty of the Electricity Service is as far as is practicable to extend the supply of electricity to rural areas. Government Departments at Stormont have pointed out to me that it is not practicable to bring electricity supplies to some rural districts. Are these people to be without electricity for ever?
These are problems that come home to the lives of the individuals concerned. After all, Parliament is about people. I should be happy to discuss these problems rather than having to dwell upon graver problems concerning law and order and the present terrifying situation in the Province.
Although we would not dream of voting against the order, we from Northern Ireland believe that it could have been improved. I trust that when further legislation comes forward we shall all have an opportunity, not to have a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage, and a Third Reading, crammed into one, but to deal at length with matters affecting the wellbeing of every person in Northern Ireland irrespective of creed or class.

Mr. John E. Maginnis (Armagh): Many of the points which I intended to raise have already been mentioned by other hon. Members. However, I should like to take up the point about the old Electricity Board giving a supply of elec-

tricity to people in Northern Ireland over manyyears. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I should like to pay tribute to the staff at the Electricity Board headquarters for the fortitude which they showed during their terrible ordeal in 1971 after the bomb blast. I hope that when the new board takes over the electricity supply service it will be free of such atrocities for many years to come.
The hon. Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) mentioned North-South relations over electricity. A former Member of this House used to talk about the hand of Maynooth being on the switch of Southern Ireland. My hand is very near the switch of Northern Ireland because Tandragee substation is the link with Maynooth. I have a great interest in this matter. At least in one sphere of activity we have this co-operation. We have many others, on which I will not dwell tonight, but electricity is a vital asset. It is not generally known that over past years electricity has been brought to Northern Ireland by this link. Unfortunately, owing to recent troubles, that link has been broken at a place in South Armagh.
I want to refer briefly to another point on which the hon. Member for Leeds, South, dwelt, namely, the new electricity supply. At Camlough in South Armagh we have a new hydro-electricscheme. However, we are running into difficulties. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about the farmers not being happy about the money they are getting for way leave. The Camlough farmers are not satisfied with the amount of money they are receiving for their land. This hydro-electric scheme is important. It is the first of its kind in Northern Ireland and will bring much needed employment to an area of high unemployment.
I am sure the House will agree that atomic power is not competitive, because atomic power stations are unable to reach full capacity owing to a technical fault on which I will not dwell. I am sure that many experts here tonight know why they cannot run to full capacity. However, in the not too distant future we hope to have an atomic power station at Lough Neagh where there is plenty of water for cooling.
Electricity is a source of energy which has been properly harnessed in Northern Ireland. I hope that in the near future all the energies of the people of Northern Ireland will be harnessed to building up the Province rather than pulling it down.
Another point concerns the connecting charge for electricity. In 1947 when my part of the country first saw the light—in other words, got a supply of electricity—the farmers had to pay dearly for the connection. Some of them had to pay as much as £170 per year. No wonder the hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke about the farmer who kept his premises well illuminated. People in those days tended to use more electricity than they needed, because they had to pay for it anyway.
There is a lot of development going on in Northern Ireland, despite the troubles. Many new bungalows and houses are going up in rural areas, especially in my area, which is the Beverley Hills of Craigavon. This will be a problem, because, under the new Bill, a house will be supplied with electricity only if it is at a reasonable distance from the mains. This will be a sore point for many years. What is a reasonable distance from the mains? Will the new service supply the additional poles required, or will they be paid for by the consumer?
I should like to mention a case in point about a constituent of mine whose premises are situated between two distribution points. Over a certain distance from these distribution points no electricity will be supplied. I think the distance is about 900 yards. It is appalling to think that one, two or three farmers, with electricity all around them, waited for more than 20 years to be connected to a supply, and have been connected only in the last few years.
I hope that this kind of thing will not happen in the future, because it leads to a lot of ill-will. A vast number of people in farming areas have been supplied with electricity and are thus able to run electrically-operated milking machines, and so on, and some even have electric central heating, yet there are isolated examples of farmers without any supply at all.
I wish the new electricity supply service every success. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Down,

North (Mr. Kilfedder) who said that he would rather have the old electricity board's name carried on. That may be all right, but there are so many boards in Northern Ireland that one fewer will not make any difference. If there were any more boards we should have the place boarded up.
I should like the Minister to explain why the stamp duty on agreements for the supply of electricity is still in operation. I think that the original Bill proposed that this duty should be dropped, and perhaps the Minister will consider that.
Will there be any delay in the introduction of this new service, seeing that Stormont is prorogued? Would the Minister tell the House the number of consumers in Northern Ireland who are still without electricity? That information would be of great help to all hon. Members.
I repeat that I wish the new service every success, and I hope that before long very few areas of Northern Ireland will be left in the dark.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I am acutely aware that we have insufficient time for these debates and that when I rise to reply there are still many comments to be made and still one or two hon. Members who want to speak, but the fact remains that if I am to give even the minimum attention which I am sure the House would like me to give to the many questions that I have been asked, it is necessary for me to seek permission to reply to the debate in the few minutes left to us.
I am grateful to the House and to hon. Members for the general welcome which they have given to the order which is of fundamental importance to the future of the Province and to the long-term industrial, domestic and customer strength of Northern Ireland. It is an important and valuable order, and one that we shall all have cause to welcome in due course and say that this was the right way forward.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked me 13questions, and if I take them at some speed it is only to try to get in all the answers.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the future of the Joint Authority, which has existed for some time, which has been


the co-ordinating supply and distribution authority. That is subsumed into the new service. The whole point is that the new service is a generating, distributing and co-ordinating service and is able to carry on both this central and key function of transmission, distribution and supply and the co-ordination of balancing and supply at any time of the day or night, and the other functions as well formerly carried on by the constituent parts.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the financial objectives. The objective achieved by the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland in recent years has been about 6·6 per cent., which compares with current targets for the Great Britain electricity authority of 7 per cent. No precise figure has been fixed for the coming years for the service. This will have to be fixed at an early date.
I was asked where the new service gets its money from. The answer to that is the Northern Ireland Government Loans Fund.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South and the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) asked whether the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries would be able to look at the service. The Committees of the prorogued Stormont would have been able to look at it. If another Parliament emerges, that will be resumed. At present it is the Secretary of State who is held accountable for all aspects of the service. He can be questioned, not on day-to-day matters, but certainly on the broad operations and policy of the service. If the Select Committee of this House wished to look into the Northern Ireland electricity service, no doubt this could be discussed, but as a matter of procedure and normality that would not be the position. As with many other aspects of what we discuss, we are in a temporary situation, which is not satisfactory, as my right hon. Friend would be the first to recognise. That means that the question of the Committee examination of this nationalised industry is not for the moment satisfactorily resolved.
The trade unions have been consulted, and firm undertakings have been given that the staff and trade union organisations will be consulted by the Ministry before any orders are made which may result in changes of employment or transfer of employment of a kind affect-

ing an employee's rights. There has already been consultation.
I was also asked about the proportion who are not at present connected. The figure I have is that 450,000 connections exist now, out of a total population of 1·5 million, which is a relatively high proportion. The total number not connected is not available. I shall come to the important question of rural electrification and installations. A number of farms are not connected, but overall the figure of 450,000, which is higher than the figure the hon. Member for Leeds South had, is a considerable achievement, representing a very high proportion of connections. It is a satisfactory situation, although obviously there will be no complete satisfaction until there is electricity supply for all those who wish it throughout Northern Ireland.
It is certainly the case that in the past the smaller domestic consumers in the cities, in Belfast and Londonderry, have benefited, and there will have to be some adjustment. I was asked why that should take three years. That was the suggested time during which the harmonisation would take place, which would mean an upward movement for the smaller domestic users. The Belfast Corporation has suggested that it should be longer, and the Government would certainly be sympathetic to looking again at the whole question of the time in which the tariffs should be harmonised. We have an open mind on the matter, and are prepared to consider it very carefully.
The position on new power stations is that Kilroot has now been approved, subject only to various local planning permissions, and will go ahead. That is a 1,200-megawatt oil-fired station. Camlough hydro-electric station is going ahead. There have been some difficulties there, but I believe they can be overcome. That, too, will make a major contribution.
There are no plans for nuclear developments, simply because the scale of the Province's requirements, even on present growth projections, does not justify that kind of investment. But minds are open on that. If the technical requirements and the projected possibilities point to the kind of nuclear development some hon. Members have in mind, that will be considered, but at


present such developments are not contemplated.
Joint activities with the South were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, South and by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis). The position is that the so-called interconnector was knocked out, but the Electricity Board for Northern Ireland hopes in the next few weeks to be able to repair some of the distribution lines in the area, and if that work goes well we may be able to move forward to repairing the interconnect or as well. But certain difficulties have been encountered, and the first thing to do is to repair some of the distribution lines.
This raises the question of security. There is very close and continuous security scrutiny, and the need for it is something of which we are all very much aware. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is very close and tight scrutiny indeed. We have to maintain continuous security throughout the whole system which in certain circumstances could be vulnerable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to the title of the "Service", a subject which was raised on Second Reading in Stormont. The preference for the title "Service" is not strong, but lies mainly in the belief that it is important to get away from the idea that the Electriciy Board for Northern Ireland is taking over the other bodies. It is not, and it is important that that is made much clearer by calling the new board the "Service" rather than a board.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North that if meters are claimed to be broken and are then taken out, tested and found to be broken, the authority bears the cost. The cost is borne by the owner or occupier of the house in which the meter is placed only if, when taken out, it is found to be perfectly all right. This procedure is perhaps not satisfactory in someways but it is normal throughout the United Kingdom and in the normal situation of electricity supplies, and it is that which prevails.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central has very great experience in these matters

and speaks on this subject with considerable authority. He asked why, as this was complicated legislation, there had not been a White Paper. There have been various reports preceding the legislation, which was discussed at Stormont. It would, of course, be desirable to discuss it in more detail, but this order has not just come out of the blue. There have been very detailed reports leading up to this proposal.
The hon. Gentleman thought that paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 was rather odd from the point of view of employee conditions. It is the fact that if the Service does not operate a code of employment the Minister may by regulation require the operation of such a code. It is thought proper to ensure this in Northern Ireland legislation because it relates to requirements under community relations. That is the reason for this rather unfamiliar paragraph.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to accountability, and I have said that the Secretary of State can answer questions, although not on the day-to-day operation. He also asked about superannuation. It is right to say that no one will be deprived of existing pension rights. I know that some older men are not in funded schemes, but their pensions will be paid. I am satisfied that the superannuation provisions are substantial.
Rural electrification is a highly important function. The Ministry has insisted that it be retained in the order, and we intend to press ahead with further rural electrification installations. Costs are a problem. Even now the charges do not cover anything like the full cost. If the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has a specific case which he thinks particularly unfair I will gladly look into it. As to the farmer who has to go on using light even though he does not pay for it, I can say that this position has been abolished.
I was asked for an assurance that there will be full rural representation on the consultative council, and I can say that there most certainly will be.
I think that I have covered nearly all the points put to me. No doubt I have missed some, but my time has run out. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order, 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray]

Orders of the Day — BOURNEMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way of protecting the rights of hon. Members? The order which the House has considered concerned an important Bill with 54 Clauses and seven Schedules, and only three Ulster Members had a chance to take part in the debate. The redundancy of many members of the electricity board in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Is the hon. Member aware that he had plenty of opportunity of speaking earlier in the debate and that he is now taking the time of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), who has secured the Adjournment debate?

11.56 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I am grateful for being able to bring the attention of the House to the matter I wish to raise in the Adjournment debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development for being present to answer what I have to ask him.
I find myself in some difficulty because I strongly support the Bournemouth football team, and the matter I wish to raise in the debate concerns the extension of its football ground, which I hope it will have, although not at its present site.
The proposed development of the Bournemouth football ground is causing great anxiety to many of my constituents living in the vicinity. The matter also raises wider issues of general public importance.
I shall begin by sketching briefly what I might call the broad historical background to the problem. A century ago, and indeed even less, Bournemouth barely existed. Then, with the Victorian discovery of the delights of the seaside, it became almost overnight a boom town. It grew rapidly into one of the country's largest resorts, and in my view one of its most beautiful, pleasant and civilised. So it remains to this day, though it is now much more than a seaside resort.
With a growing population and the growing popularity of association football, there naturally came a football club and ground. It was built on what was then the edge of the town, on land leased from what is known as the Cooper Dean estate, in the King's Park area.
At the time that was a perfectly sensible arrangement. But the town went on growing, and the ground was overtaken by development. This development took the form of good residential property of the kind which will be familiar to anyone who knows Bournemouth. We now have a football ground where no one would dream of putting it if we were starting from scratch—namely, in the middle of what is otherwise a quiet residential area.
What is proposed is a major new development on this site, to turn the ground into a sports and social centre which would be in use seven days a week. Some idea of its scale can be gained from the fact that the club apparently expects to spend about £1 million over five years. It is intended to double the crowdcapacity from some 20,000 to 40,000 or even 50,000, among other things by the construction of a new stand reaching to a height of no less than 90 feet. The facilities will include 12 squash courts, a large training hall, sauna baths and a restaurant.
All this already has outline planning permission from the Bournemouth Council, as the planning authority, and there is every reason to suppose that detailed planning permission will soon be forthcoming and that development substantially along these lines will then go ahead. My constituents and I believe that it should not be allowed to do so.
Before I set out my objections in more detail, let me first make clear some of the things which are not at issue, because


I suspect that there may be some misunderstanding locally and even among some of the other Ministers in my right hon. Friend's Department. It is not an objection to football. Many of those who have written to me protesting most strongly about the proposals are themselves season ticket holders. The club is rightly a source of considerable local patriotism and pride. I need hardly say that it has an enterprising management and that it has in Ted MacDougall a person widely held to be one of the best goal scorers in the country. Last season, the club narrowly missed promotion. My constituents wish it well, and so do I.
This is not an objection, therefore, to the football ground as it stands or to its reasonable improvement as a conventional football ground. Naturally, the fortnightly home matches cause my constituents some inconvenience, but they have lived with it for a long time and are quite prepared to go on putting up with it. Nor is it an objection to the idea of a general sports, social and entertainments centre. On the contrary, I fully share the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and of Dr. Bannister and the Sports Council for more developments of this kind. We can all agree in principle on the desirability of making fuller use of what is a much under-used asset represented by many professional football grounds. The issue is none of these things; it is whether this particular development should be allowed at this particular site.
As I said, this is basically a quiet residential area. It is openly acknowledged that the investment contemplated can be justified only by fostering intensive use of the facilities, day in and day out, and there is talk of special events designed for capacity crowds. In my view, all this amounts to a major change of usage and one which is wholly inappropriate to the neighbourhood. It must substantially destroy its existing character, causing considerable distress and no doubt considerable financial loss by driving down property values for those who now live there.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the football ground, which I know well. I refereed

there many times and have visited it since. I cannot think of a site with more space around it capable of being turned into a seven-days-a-week sports centre. But if the hon. Gentleman is right in what he is saying—that every football ground in this country should be removed from residential areas—the cost of doing so would be astronomic. It would also remove immediately from the sporting public the opportunity of supporting sport on their own ground. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the extent of the case he is making and the impossibility in economic terms of carrying it out?

Mr. Cordle: I appreciate that point but I believe that in respect of the Bournemouth ground this matter can be dealt with much more satisfactorily by moving the site only three-quarters of a mile to a mile away, rather than that it should be used for a development which could cause so much disturbance to this largely residential area.

Mr. Howell: Who will pay?

Mr. Cordle: It can well be undertaken by selling the present site. A new site comparable to the present site could be provided in another area. However, the case will, I hope, become clearer to the hon. Gentleman as I go on.
Even though still more existing open space is to be lost to parking space, parking provision will be totally inadequate for larger crowds and the local residents will undoubtedly face increasingly frequent difficulties in gaining access to their own homes. General parking congestion, already serious on match days, will grow still further and be exacerbated by other planned changes in the road system.
There will be increasing nuisance from noise and litter, and increasingly frequent problems from the kind of minority hooliganism about which we all know, and which already brings, on match days, the usual crop of broken windows, damaged gates and fences, personal abuse, and fights between rival gangs. There are other issues that I could mention, but they are subsidiary.
There is the question whether the council as a whole has been properly informed in detail of the representations


of my constituents. My constituents believe that it has not, and it appears that the corporation's solicitor is not prepared to dispute that. There is the question whether the council exercised its powers responsibly. It is acknowledged that it made its decision on a block plan, with no details of the height or elevation of the proposed stand. There is the question whether, whatever use is made of the ground, a stand that is 90 feet high should be allowed to be built within a few feet of people's garden fences.
I rest my case, however, principally on the main issue of the general nature of this development in this place. If it were considered as a completely new project—which is what it amounts to—I do not believe that anyone in his right mind would agree to it. It cannot be said that there is no alternative. Less than one mile away, in Castle Lane, on land owned by the same landlord, there is suitable open ground, near commercial and not residential development, which is already taking place—including a large Woolcostore. This site would allow ample parking space and is well served by roads from all over the region. In view of the amount of money involved in the present scheme it can hardly be said that the club is too poor to contemplate such a move.
In view of the factors that I have mentioned I believe that the Secretary of State should intervene in this matter and insist on a full public inquiry before anything further is allowed to happen.
We hear much talk today about protecting and improving our environment. That is more than a matter of great sewerage schemes and measures against pollution; if it means anything it also means taking proper account of the environment and the quality of life of relatively small groups of people like my constituents and the neighbourhoods in which they live. That is what I want to see in this case, and I hope for the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I intervene only for a few moments, because I know that the Minister wants his half of the game in which to reply. I hope that he does not feel that this case needs to be called in for a special inquiry; indeed, it is pre-emin-

ently one that should be settled locally by the people who know the area—local authority members and public representaives.
I commend what the Bournemouth Football Club is trying to do. I must declare an interest, because as Minister for six years I tried to get other clubs to do likewise. I am glad that my successor, the present Minister for Sport, is following the same policy. It makes a nonsense to have football grounds which are used once in 14 days. It is economically impossible to conduct a football club on that basis, and to the extent that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) properly and generously paid tribute to his football club, he will surely want to see it succeed economically. It cannot succeed economically if it has the dead hand of economics hanging over it in this way.
I understand that Bournemouth Football Club is the first club to come forward with specific proposals to erect squash courts, and so on, and to turn its ground into a sports facility for the young people of the area. These facilities are needed to help curb the hooliganism about which the hon. Member rightly spoke. I do not believe that his constituents and the local residents realise the healthy sporting nature of the facilities that are proposed. If they did they would not object so strongly as they appear to be objecting at present.
Every club would be open to the same sort of argument if the Minister, in principle, decided to call in this case. I hope, therefore, that he will agree that the right course to adopt is to allow the Bournemouth City Council to carry out that policy which the Sports Council wishes to be carried out, and to allow every-day facilities for the local population, which can do nothing but good in the interests of leisure and the proper use of recreational facilities.

12.10 a.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I, too, must declare an interest in that I lived in Bournemouth for many years and I know the ground there and the area around it pretty well.
The subject raised tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) goes


to the root of the relationship between central Government and local government in planning matters. Briefly, it is that in general a local planning authority should be at liberty to plan its own district as it sees fit and the Government should intervene in positive planning decisions only if they involve national or regional issues. I apply that general rule to the facts of this case.
Dean Court football ground is in King's Park, a large park area almost all round the ground and containing other sports grounds—a cricket ground, tennis courts, bowling greens and athletic grounds. On the north-west side and stretching out from the north-west side there is a pleasant residential area with large houses in pleasant gardens, and I would think that houses are of some considerable value in that area of Bournemouth.
Dean Park football ground is the home of Bournemouth and Boscombe Football Club and, as I am sure the House knows, Bournemouth, as it is called for short in the Football League, strove to get promotion last year from the Third Division and was only pipped at the post and finally came third in the table. It is a club with a ground of only 24,000 capacity and, of course, if it is striving to get into the Second Division, it looks for a greater capacity for its ground.
The phase of development which is now before the local planning authority is not for as much as my hon. Friend suggested—the 50,000 figure—but for only 30,000. It is to rebuild a stand on the north-east terrace. An outline planning application for the development of the site for greater capacity was submitted to the Bournemouth Corporation earlier this year, and the corporation had then to consider whether this was a substantial departure from the development plan. I cannot quarrel with the corporation's decision that it was not. It was a continuation of recreational use.
Of course, despite that, the Secretary of State could have called it in. It was an outline planning application and at that stage the Secretary of State could have called it in. In fact, it came to our knowledge only after outline permission had been granted.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said, this is a local matter. It is a matter of increasing the capacity of an existing football ground. The phrase used in the application for outline permission and in the following permission was
to enlarge the football stadium on an extended site".
Outline planning permission was granted on 7th March.
In the Department we received some 40 protests from residents in the neighbourhood, and one might criticise the local planning authority in that perhaps it should not have granted outline permission without having before it all the details of the development, such as the height of the stand, the design of the stand and so on.
In addition to the criticism which we received in the Department, I am informed by the Bournemouth Corporation that there was considerable support and that a petition of 40,000 signatures was raised in support of the scheme. Then the club proceeded to submit detailed plans at the end of May. These were advertised and it was shown to the public that the proposals were to include, within the stand, squash courts, practice rooms, sauna baths, a gymnasium, club room, restaurant and bars. Perhaps the point which hit the public so hard was the fact that the stand was to be 85 feet to 90 feet high. Undoubtedly a stand of this sort will tower above the neighbouring residences. It is not pre-judging the merits of this but only stating the facts if I say that this development will be overpowering in that residential area. It will be obtrusive to the landscape and will undoubtedly cause a loss of value to the residences in that area.
Three of the houses, instead of looking out on to the open spaces of King's Park, will be looking at a 90 feet-high wall at the bottom of their gardens. We cannot hide the fact that the development will have a great impact on the residential area around it. As my hon. Friend said, the increased traffic in the residential area will be significant if this ground is to be used economically—as it ought to be used if this development is undertaken—for seven days a week. All these are local issues, the very issues which a democratically elected council should decide


for its own citizens. The Secretary of State does not try to substitute his own ideas of good planning for those of the local planning authority. Frequently in our Department there are occasions on which we think that a local authority is not exercising principles of good planning, but unless a major issue arises out of it, the Secretary of State would be wrong to interfere.
If the local authority threatens something which is what one might call part of our heritage then, of course, the Secretary of State would intervene. However disastrous this development may be for those houses around the ground—these Edwardian or possibly subsequent to first world war houses—they cannot be described, however nice they are as residences, as some part of our heritage the reduction in value of which the Secretary of State ought to prevent. Because of the intrusion into this residential area my hon. Friend was right to call attention to the alternative site in Castle Lane and I am sure that the local planning authority will give this every consideration. It would be to usurp its planning functions if my right hon. Friend were to direct it to take anything like that into particular consideration.
The position is that outline planning permission has been given for an extension of capacity on the site, an extended site, which takes into development a small part of open space. To that extent it may have to come before my right hon. Friend later. This is purely incidental; it is not the basic factor in consideration. The position is that the outline planning permission has been given. The detailed planning application has been submitted but no detailed planning permission has yet been given. The Secretary of State could still revoke the outline planning permission. That exceptional course would give rise to a claim for compensa-

tion. The Secretary of State could call in the application and hold an inquiry. The position then would be that my right hon. Friend would have to choose between the amenities of the residential area on the one hand and the extra provision for spectators at the football matches, which are undoubtedly popular, and the provision of the other sporting facilities in the stand, the squash courts and so on, on the other. The choice should not be in the hands of the Secretary of State unless some national issue arises. I cannot think that a national issue arises here. It is for the local planning authority to decide.
I strongly advise my hon. Friend to put to the local council the very substantial arguments which he has adduced, because the Council should decide in this case. Having carefully considered the representations which have been made to us in the light of our general policy my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has come to the conclusion that, although the development would have considerable impact on the locality and some repercussions over a wider area within Bournemouth, which I am sure the local planning authority will take fully into account in applying the best planning principles, there are no regional or national issues involved which would justify our taking the responsibility for dealing with the detailed proposals out of the local planning authority's hands or taking action to revoke the outline planning permission which has been granted.
My hon. Friend has done a good service by raising this matter in the House, and I am sure that the local planning authority will take fully into account what he said.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock